IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP.No. 1845 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 5, 2010. Bimla Devi. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the appellant Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 4 Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For respondent No.5. Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The petitioner’s husband was in service with the State of Himachal Pradesh where he was serving as a Dhobi in the medical establishment of the State. He was posted with the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Kullu where he worked as Dhobi till 13.4.2008 when he died due to a heart attack. 2. The petitioner who is the widow of the deceased, has filed this writ petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the basis of Annexure: P-2 which is a Group Insurance 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes 2 Scheme insuring the employees for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the case of their death and for other sums in case of injury. The said Scheme was circulated by the Finance Department to all the Drawing and Disbursing Officers. The salient features of the Scheme (Annexure:P-3) are as under:- “Government of Himachal Pradesh Finance (IF) Department No.Fin.IF(F)9-2/2006-I Dated, Shimla-171002 the 10th October, 2007. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to renew the Indexed Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for Regular, Adhoc, Part-time, Contractual and daily waged Employees of Govt. departments, Boards, Corporations, Universities and autonomous bodies on compulsory basis for a period of one year w.e.f. 10.10.2007. The scheme would be implemented through Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh- 160034 through its newly opened office at Rain Basera Building, Khalini, Shimla-171002. Salient features of the scheme are as under: “1. Premium Rs.50/-p.a. per annum employee (inclusive of all taxes and levies ) for a sum assured of Rs. 2.00 lakh. 2. Coverage: As per Annexure-A 3.Benefits in case of: a. Death Rs.2.00 lakh b. Permanent total disablement Rs.2.00 lakh c. Loss of one limb + one eye/both eyes or both limbs Rs.2.00 lakh d. Loss of one limb/eye Rs.1.00 lakh A. Mode of Premium Payment: (1) The State Govt. will make an advance payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- on account of premium for approx. 1,40,000 employees of Govt. departments to Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Chandigarh through its Shimla office i.e. Rain Basera 3 Building Khalini, Shimla 171002. Employees joining service after the inception date of the policy will be covered under the scheme from next renewal of the policy. (2) The All Boards, Corporations, Universities, Autonomous Bodies would make advance payment of premium to Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Rain Basera Building, Khalini, Shimla-171002 by a single Cheque/draft in favour of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Shimla. B. Mode of Premium Recovery (1) All the Head of Departments would ensure supplying a copy of this notification to all the DDOs under their administrative control with suitable instructions to recover an amount of Rs. 50/- from each employee from their next payable salary and this recovery would be credited to Receipt Head 0235-60-105-02. Since the policy is on compulsory basis, recovery has to be ensured from all the Regular, Adhoc, Contractual, Part time and Daily Waged employees not later than the salary/wages for the month of October payable in November, 2007. (2) The Boards/Corporation/Universities/Autonomous Bodies may adopt any suitable measure to recover the premium from their employees as they may deem fit. Claims:- All the claims will be dealt directly by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Rain Basera Building, Khalini, Shimla-171002 only without any involvement of any higher or lower level office and settled within a week’s time after completion of requisite claim formalities which are as per Annexure A. The Head of Departments will lodge the claims with the Insurance Company within 30 days of occurrence of any accident in the specified forms enclosed with Annexure:A with the specific proof of deduction of premium in respect of employee(s) on whose behalf claim is being lodged. The scope of cover and specimen copies of claim intimation letter and claims form would be as per Annexure “A” and 4 Annexure I & II. Action may be ensured at the earliest possible on A & B above. By Order (Arvind Mehta) Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh No.Fin.IF(F) 9-2/206-I Dated,Shimla-171002 10.10.2007. Copy of information and necessary action to: 1. All Administrative Secretaries to the Govt. of H.P. 2.All Heads of Departments in H.P. 3. The Director, Treasuries & Accounts with 120 copies for circulation to all the treasuries in the State so that recovery of premium as per para B0(1) is ensured and credited in appropriate designated receipt head. 4. All Boards/Corporations/Universities/Autonomous Bodies in H.P. 5.A.G, H.P., Shimla-171003. 6. The Controller, Printing and Stationery, H.P., Shimla-5 for publication in the extra ordinary Rajpatra. 7.The President, H.P. NGO Federation, Shimla-2 Sd/- Spl. Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.” 3. This is the basis for the claim by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been paid any amount by the State or the Insurance Company rather, she has been treated by the State with a callous attitude. 4. In reply to the writ petition, the State has taken an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable for “the purpose of proper jurisdiction”. The second preliminary objection is that the scheme was not brought to the notice of Block Medical Officer, Anni who was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of deceased Kanshi Ram and he could not therefore deduct Rs.50/- from the salary of the husband of 5 the petitioner as insurance premium. In these circumstances, the premium payable on behalf of the deceased could not be paid to the Insurance Company. The reply further continues in the third preliminary objection that it is not only the husband of the petitioner whose insurance premium was not deducted from the salary but also there are other similarly situate employees also. 5. The Insurance Company as usual, contests the claim of the petitioner on the ground that according to the conditions of the policy, the death of an employee is not to be compensated. In other words, it is not an insurable event. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in particular, refers to the operative Clause of the policy Annexure: R-5/B in support of his contention. I cannot find anything in this clause which exempts the Insurance Company from compensating the heirs of the deceased because of death while in service. The interpretation sought to be placed on this regulation cannot be accepted. This argument is rejected. 7. In Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi and another, (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 229, the Supreme Court was seized of a some what similar case where a dispute had been raised for the claim of the deceased whose insurance premium had not been deducted by his employer. The Court did not accept the contention that it was the insured who was to remind his employer about the deduction of his amount from the salary 6 and in the event of non-deduction, the contract of insurance would come to an end. 8. I find the facts in the present case most distressing. The husband of the petitioner was not expected to chase his employer asking him to deduct a mere amount of Rs. 50/- from his salary every month. Rather, a plain reading of Annexures: P-1 and P-2 clearly shows that the duty is that of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The explanation offered in the reply for not doing this is startling and borders on the ridiculous. The liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed or obliterated by the callous attitude displayed by the Officer of this department. If there is any blame which can be attributed it is with the Block Medical Officer or the Chief Medical Officer for which the government is free to conduct an inquiry. I do not find any reason to disallow this writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction. It is settled law that any person can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where his fundamental rights have been affected. 9. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the following directions are issued: (a). A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid by the State Government to the petitioner forthwith. This amount shall be deposited in her bank account, particulars whereof shall be furnished by her. (b). It will be open to the State to settle the dispute with respondent No.5 wherein it will be 7 open to both parties to urge their respective stands. Needless to say that the decision in Delhi Electric Supply’s case (supra) is clear and unequivocal and the petitioner cannot be left to wait for the niceties of law to be settled inter se between the State and the Insurance Company. The contention of the State is that the premium of Rs. 70 lakh already stands paid to the Insurance Company. If that be so, the necessary consequences would ensue. (c). The State, if so deems fit, may fix the responsibility on an officer who is found negligent or in dereliction of duty and take action in accordance with law. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of the petitioner till its payment. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 5,2010(R)