Mrs. Santosh Devi vs Union of India and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned action of the respondent authorities denying the amount of Postal Insurance Policy after the death of insured Sepoy Raj Singh, his widow has approached this court by way of present writ petition, seeking release of the policy amount by issuing appropriate writ. Brief facts of the case, which are hardly in dispute are that the husband of the petitioner, while serving with the respondent-department, opted for Postal Life Insurance Policy in the month of September 2006. Initially, monthly premium @ Rs. 635/- as per Annexure P-2, was deducted from the salary of the insured for the months together from September 2006 to February 2007, total amounting to Rs. 3810/-. However, premium for the months of March 2007 to August 2008 could not be inadvertently recovered from his salary.

Insured-Sepoy Raj Singh died of heart attack on 4.8.2008. After realising their bonafide mistake, an amount of Rs. 11,430/- was recovered by the authorities from the arrears of the insured, which accrued in his favour on account of 6th Pay Commission. However, this deduction from the arrears of salary of the deceased was found to be contrary to the provisions of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. It is undisputed between the parties that after the death of the insured, this amount of Rs. 11,430/- could not have been recovered. Immediately after the death of her husband, the insured amount of Rs. 1.00 lac became due to the petitioner. However, since the amount was not being paid for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she approached this court by way of present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed only on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been put to unwarranted harassment by the respondent authorities without there being any fault on her part. After the death of her husband in August 2008, petitioner has been running from pillar to post, requesting the respondent authorities to release the due amount to her but the respondent authorities kept on delaying the matter without any justified reasons. He further submits that since the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac of insurance policy, as a matter of fact, was used by the respondent authorities, the petitioner was entitled for the same alongwith interest at the market rate. He prays for allowing the present writ petition issuing appropriate directions against the respondents.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner has not alleged any malafide against any of the officer of the respondent-department. He also places reliance on Rule 44 (Annexure R-1) to contend that the insured was also responsible to pay the monthly amount of premium ensuring that the requisite amount deducted from his pay of each month. In the present case, since the insured was also negligent in this regard, the entire blame cannot be put on the respondent authorities. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the insured i.e. late husband of the petitioner opted for Postal Life Insurance Policy. The option exercised by him was duly accepted by the respondent authorities on 20.9.2006. Monthly premium i.e. Rs. 635/- was deducted from his salary from September 2006 to February 2007 i.e. for six months amounting to Rs. 3810/-. However, thereafter, the authorities for the undisclosed reasons, did not deduct the monthly premium from the salary of the insured. The insured namely late Sepoy Raj Singh died on 4.8.2008. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 11430/- was illegally deducted from the arrears of the deceased, which accrued on account of 6th Pay Commission. It is also undisputed between the parties that after the death of the insured, no amount could have been deducted from the arrears of the deceased/insured on account of monthly premium. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities proceeded on wholly misconceived approach and also in a negligent manner, while not deducing the monthly premium at the appropriate time and deducting the same after the death of the insured. Such an arbitrary action of the respondent authorities cannot be sustained.

Immediately after the death of the insured on 4.8.2008, the amount of insurance policy had become due for payment to the petitioner. This amount has not been paid to the petitioner till date. No reasons, whatsoever, are forthcoming as to why the amount of insurance policy was not being paid to the petitioner, particularly, when her entitlement was not in dispute and there was no other fault on her part. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the petitioner was entitled for the amount of insurance policy i.e. Rs. 1.00 lac immediately after the date of death of her husband on 4.8.2008. Since the amount of insurance policy has not been paid to the petitioner, she has become entitled for receiving the said amount alongwith interest.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs.

Consequently, the respondent authorities, whosoever is competent authority are directed to release the amount of insurance policy i.e. Rs. 1.00 lac in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 4.8.2008, till the date of actual payment. It is further made clear that the amount of Rs. 11430/-, which was illegally deducted after the death of the insured shall also be paid to the petitioner, if not already paid. The respondent authorities shall also pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner, which are quantified at Rs. 30,000/-. The entire exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued, as hereinabove, the present writ petition stands allowed with costs.