JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Because of communication gap between the functionaries of the State Government and the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') family members of one Abhaya Kumar Dash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased-employee') have been deprived of their legitimate entitlements, alleges petitioner Sulachana Dash, widow of aforesaid Abhaya Kumar Dash. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as presented by the petitioner and not disputed by the opposite parties would suffice. In the year 1983 the deceased while working as Forest Ranger under the Working Plan Officer II, Bhanjanagar got coverage under the General Insurance Scheme. For that purpose a sum of Rs. 450/-was sanctioned by the concerned officials and a bank draft was sent to the Secretary, Finance Department towards the premium on 7-12-1983. One pass book was opened in respect of deceased Abhaya. Subsequently deceased was transferred to various places in January, 1984, September, 1985, October, 1986. April, 1989 and was finally posted under the Divisional Manager (Plantation) of the Corporation at Berhampur. On 6-10-1992 Abhaya breathed his last. Initially the scale of the deceased being Rs. 445/- he was required to deposit Rs. 450/-as contribution against which a sum of Rs. 15,000/-was assured. Subsequently in 1987, the scheme was modified and the amount of assured sum was raised to Rs. 40,000/-. On 23-3-1989, the concerned Divisional Forest Officer of the Working Plan Division requested the Finance Department for despatch of deceased's pass book. On 19-2-1994 the pass book was received from the Finance Department by the Divisional Manager (Plantation), Berhampur. Though request was made by the officials of the Corporation for grant of enhanced amount to the petitioner, same was not accepted by the State Government on the ground of short deposit. The Finance Department required an inquiry to be conducted on the basis of which the Assistant Conservator of Forests submitted an inquiry report indicating the reason for non-deposit of balance amount. It was clearly stated that the short-fall was due to non-receipt of pass book. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests requested the Principal Secretary, Finance Department to regularise the matter in view of the inquiry report and to pay the amount to the petitioner. It was clearly stated that the short-fall was due to non-receipt of pass book. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests requested the Principal Secretary, Finance Department to regularise the matter in view of the inquiry report and to pay the amount to the petitioner. The Under-Secretary to the Government, Finance Department requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to send total claim under the scheme on the basis of the actual deposit for payment of the assured sum to the beneficiaries. Grievance of the petitioner is that because of red-tapism the benefits to which she and other members of the family are entitled cannot be denied. 3. Learned counsel for the State and the Corporation tried to put the ball in the Court of the other, and plead helpessness. They tried to throw responsibility in the matter of non-payment of entitlement of the petitioner on each other. We are baffled that over a petty matter the family members of a deceased-employee, who are in distress, are not given the entitlements due to them. An employee seeks coverage under the insurance scheme for providing monetary assistance after his death. It is a beneficial arrangement. It is appropriate for the employer to see that proper deductions are made and remitted to the concerned authorities. Here the admitted position is that there is failure, the State and the Corporation put blame on the other. It is very much prejudicial so far as family members of the deceased employee of a family are concerned. In a welfare State be it the State or the Corporation which is State under the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it has to be ensured that the benefit to which an employee or members of his family after his death are entitled to, do not become a distance dream because of any technical flow or aberration committed by his employer. For somebody-else's failure to act properly they should not be deprived of their legitimate entitlements. That would be giving premium to technicalities vis-a-vis substantial justice. Procedural wrongles should not stand on the way of legitimate entitlements of an employee or his family members. It is for the concerned authorites to sort out the problem, and tie up the loose ends expeditiously so that the benefit is not denied to the affected person(s). 4. That would be giving premium to technicalities vis-a-vis substantial justice. Procedural wrongles should not stand on the way of legitimate entitlements of an employee or his family members. It is for the concerned authorites to sort out the problem, and tie up the loose ends expeditiously so that the benefit is not denied to the affected person(s). 4. In the circumstances, we direct that the petitioner be paid the amount payable to her for deceased's coverage under the 1987 Group Insurance Scheme within three months from today. But the technicalities and procedural wrangles be sorted out between the State Government and the Corporation within a short time so that the payment can be made within the time stipulated by us. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. A. Deb, J. I agree.