IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8565 of 2002 Between: Smt.P.Rahamathun. W/o. Late P.Khasim Khan. R/o. Kodad Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Govt., Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Achampet (V) & (M), Guntur. 3 The District Treasury Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: No appearance Counsel for the Respondent No.5: A.G.P. FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the amount due under Group Insurance Scheme to the petitioner as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 28.02.1996. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider her representation dated 29.01.2002 and pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Group Insurance Scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.46. The petitioner’s husband worked as village servant of Jattapalli Thanda, Hamlet of Madipadu Village, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District. The State Government extended the beneﬁt of Employees Group Insurance Scheme to village servants by issuing G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 28.02.1996. The category of village servants was included under Group-D. The petitioner’s husband died on 21.12.1998. As per G.O.Ms.No.348, dated 7.12.1998 funeral expenses, which were earlier ﬁxed at Rs.1000/-, were enhanced to Rs.2000/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved by denial of payment of Rs.15,000/- under Group Insurance Scheme and the additional sum of Rs.1,000/- for performing obsequies, and filed the present writ petition. The Deputy Director, District Treasury Oﬃce, Guntur District-third respondent, ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. While admitting that the A.P. State Employees Group Insurance Scheme 1984 was extended to the village servants, she stated that the scheme was applied to the village servants subject to the following conditions. a) Each village servant shall contribute Rs.10/- per month till he attains the age of 60 years, and he will be treated as belonging to Group “D” of the scheme. After completion of 60 years he may claim the saving fund portion, with interest or at his option continue to contribute the saving fund subscription. b) In the case of death of village servant before attaining the age of 60 years, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to nominee of the deceased in addition to the balance in the saving fund as prescribed in the Government Order 2nd cited. She further stated that the petitioner’s claim for payment of amount under Group Insurance Scheme was presented in the District Treasury vide letter dated 24.04.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Atachampet. The said proposal was returned with audit objections by the oﬃce of respondent No.3 vide letter dated 7.06.2001 to the eﬀect that as the husband of the petitioner crossed 60 years of age at the time of his death, he is not eligible for payment of Rs.15,000/-. It is mentioned in the counter aﬃdavit that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 28.02.1996 read with G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 10.11.1987 a village servant, who has contributed Rs.15,000/- is eligible for grant of Group Insurance Scheme at Rs.15,000/-, provided he expires before attaining the age of 60 years and that in case he crosses 60 years of age he is eligible for saving fund alone along with interest. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Atchampet Mandal, respondent No.2, he took an identical stand as that of respondent No.3. As regards the funeral expenses, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1000/-, which was provided under G.O.Ms.No.101, dated 27.01.1992, was increased to Rs.2000/- in G.O.Ms.No.348, dated 7.12.1998 in respect of some categories of employees in which the village servants were not included, but however, on the representation of the Village Servants’ Association, the said beneﬁt was extended to the village servants also under G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 1.02.2001. It is further stated that whether the said G.O. applies to the village servants, who died prior to its issuance, is not stated in the said G.O. With regard to the payment of insurance sum of Rs.15,000/-, as G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 28.02.1996 restricts payment of the sum of Rs.15,000/- only to the families of persons who died before attaining the age of 60 years and the husband of the petitioner crossed 60 years, the petitioner would be entitled to receive only the saving fund portion. In this view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for payment of Rs.15,000/-. However, the petitioner is entitled to receive the saving fund portion along with interest. The respondents are directed to pay the said sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already paid. As regard the additional funeral expenses, since the husband of the petitioner died prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.348, dated 7.12.1998, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to payment of the additional amount of Rs.1000/-. This is because G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 1.02.2001 is only clariﬁcatory in nature, and unless it is given prospective operation, it should date back to the time when G.O.Ms.No.348 was issued. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the additional sum of Rs.1,000/- towards funeral expenses to the petitioner within the above mentioned period. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of Writ Petition, WPMP.No.10641 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ (C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.) 14th October, 2008 Js.