1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2006/2005 (Mst. Neelam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 15/05/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. G.A. BY THE COURT:- By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order Annex.4 dated 3.2.2004 and a direction to the respondents to make payment of group insurance scheme to the petitioner on the death of her husband Late Shri Kashiram who died while in service. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was appointed as Forest Guard vide order dated 29.4.1987. While in service, her husband Shri Kashi Ram died on 29.5.2002 in a train accident. The report of the said 2 accident was lodged and the documents Annex.2 and 3 showing that her husband died in train accident have been placed on record. After death of her husband, the petitioner has been paid the other retiral benefits, however, the payment accruing from Group Insurance Scheme has not been paid to her. Hence this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State. In para 4 of the reply, it has been stated that certain categories of the persons are specifically excluded from the purview of the Group Insurance Scheme i.e. in case of suicide if it is proved by police report and investigation or the person suffering from mental disturbance. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the petitioner's husband was of unsound mind and therefore, he met with train accident and died. It is strange that the State comes with a case that the employee was of unsound mind. Had the person been of unsound mind, there would not have been any occasion to employ him. While, the deceased was in service, the State never came with a case that he is of unsound mind. At any rate, it cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner committed suicide. Had the case of the State been that the deceased committed suicide, probably the case may be covered by the exclusions, whereas from the material on record, it has been 3 established indisputably that the husband of the petitioner died in a train accident. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no exclusion clause for the person dying while in service in a road or train accident in the insurance police. The respondents therefore, fell in error in denying the payment of group insurance scheme to the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annex.4 dated 3.2.2004 is set aside and the respondent No.3 is directed to make payment of group insurance at the rates as applicable to the deceased. This exercise be completed within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp