Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 33 (PAT)

Pandey Tally Sahay v. State Of Bihar

1996-01-19

R.M.PRASAD

body1996
Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, in this writ application, prays for quashing of the order dated 22.12.1994 (Annexure-1) whereby and whereunder the State Government has rejected her claim for payment of 75% of the Group insurance amount with interest thereon. under paragraph 3 (e) of its Finance departments Resolution No. G. I. I-02/85-4185-F. dated 13th July, 1985, (in short the Resolution,) contained in annexure 5, apart from payment of lump-sum amount of Rs.96,000/- in terms of paragraph 2 (b) of the Resolution and, further prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the aforesaid Group Insurance amount deposited by the deceased husband of the petitioner during the his lifetime. 2. In short, the relevant facts of this case are that the husband of the petitioner, Late Pandey Narendra sahay, was a member of the Bihar adminsitrative Service appointed in the year 1962 as Sub-Deputy Collector and was posted as Under- Secretary, Home (Special) department in the State secretariat, Patna till 6-8-1994 when he died in harness in Kurji Holi Family hospital at 3.58 A. M. . In the year 1979, the Government of Bihar came up with a Group Insurance Scheme and framed rules, named as Bihar Governments servants Compulsory Group Insurance rules, 1979 which came into force with effect from 1st October, 1979. The said rules applied to work charge staff, temporary and permanent gazetted and non-gazetted Government. Servants of regular establishment, persons on foreign service and on deputation and officers of All India Service belonging to the cadre of the State cadre, but not applied to those who are appointed on daily wages are on extension in service after attaining the age of superannuation or have been re-employed after retirement. According to the said rules, A Government servant had to contribute Rs.10/- per month compulsorily from his pay from 1st November, 1979. Rule 12 of the said Rules provides that if a Government servant dies while in service, his/her nominee shall be paid Rs.12.000/- in one lump sum. 3. It is claimed that the husband of the petitioner contributed in his Group insurance account from 1.10.1979 under the aforesaid Scheme. Vide resolution No.3412 dated 29th March, 1982 of the Finance Department, the state Government amended the aforementioned Rules, 1979 and monthly contribution of Rs.10/- was raised to Rs.20/-. 3. It is claimed that the husband of the petitioner contributed in his Group insurance account from 1.10.1979 under the aforesaid Scheme. Vide resolution No.3412 dated 29th March, 1982 of the Finance Department, the state Government amended the aforementioned Rules, 1979 and monthly contribution of Rs.10/- was raised to Rs.20/-. The entire amount deposited by the employees/officers was payable to them with interest at the state of 6% per annum after their retirement. Further, the lump sum amount was increased to Rs.24.000/-payable to the nominee/legal heir of the Government servant dying in harness. The said scheme was further amended in the year 1985, vide Finance departments Resolution No. G. I. I-02/85-4185-F dated 13th July, 1985 (Annexure 5 ). The Resolution, inter alia, raised a monthly contribution from Rs.20/- to Rs.80/- from the employees and Officers other than class IV employees and also raised a lump sum amount payable to the nominee/legal heirs of the Govenment servant who died during ten years of his service or during ten years from the date of including in the scheme. Further, a new provision was added, vide paragraph 3 of the Resolution by which certain percentage of amount deposited by the Government servant, including the interest thereon was made payable to the nominee/legal heirs of the deceased Government servant if he had put in required years of service. Paragraph 3 (e) of the Resolution provides that if a Government servant dies after 29 years of service or after 29 years from the date of inclusion in the scheme, the nominee/legal heirs would be paid the aforementioned lump sum amount plus 75% of the amount deposited by him/her, including the interest thereon. The relevant paragraphs of the Resolution are quoted hereunder: "2. It was seriously considered regarding the welfare of the employees and officers and their family members and concluded that a sum of Rs.24,000 is meagre because of the increased dearness. Therefore, the state Government have now decided that- (a) A sum of Rs.40 will be deducted from the monthly salary of Class IV employees. A lump sum of Rs.50,000 will be paid to the nominee/legal heirs, if the government servant dies during 10 years of their service or during 10 years from the date of inclusion in this scheme. (b) A sum of Rs.80 will be duducted from the monthly salary of the employees and officers other than Class IV employees. A lump sum of Rs.50,000 will be paid to the nominee/legal heirs, if the government servant dies during 10 years of their service or during 10 years from the date of inclusion in this scheme. (b) A sum of Rs.80 will be duducted from the monthly salary of the employees and officers other than Class IV employees. A lump-sum of Rs.96,000 will be paid to the nominee/legal heirs, if the Government servant dies during 10 years of their service; or during 10 years from the date of inclusion in this scheme. (e) If a Government servant dies after 29 years of service or after 29 years from the date of inclusion in this scheme, the nominee/legal heirs would be paid the amount mentionedam para 2 above, plus 75% of the amount deposited by him/her, including the interest thereon. " 4. It is stated by the petitioner that her husband was in continuous service for more than 32 years and died during his service period and thus, she is entitled to receive 75 of the amount deposited by her husband along with the interest thereon, besides the lump sum amount as provided under the aforementioned paragraph 2 (b) of the resolution. 5. The pettioner by her representation, contained in Annexure 6, gave information about the death of her husband and also requested for the payment of aforementioned amount. The Deputy Secretary. Home (Special)Department of the Government of bihar, vide letter dated 28th September, 1994, contained in Annexure 7, communicated the sanction of the lumpsum amount of Rs.96,000/- only in terms of the aforementioned paragraph 2 (b) of the Resolution and did not mention anything about the claim of the petitioner for payment of 75% of the amount deposited by her husband along with the interest. The petitioner, vide her letter dated 27.10.1994 (Annexure 8) again requested the Deputy secretary. Home (Special) Department (Respondent No.4) for payment of aforesaid amount of 75% with interest which was, however, rejected vide impugned order (Anneuxre 1 ). 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which the facts are not disputed. However, it is stated that the matter was referred to the Finance Department which advised that no amount is admissible to the petitioner beyond Rs.96,000/- which has been sanctioned and paid to her. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which the facts are not disputed. However, it is stated that the matter was referred to the Finance Department which advised that no amount is admissible to the petitioner beyond Rs.96,000/- which has been sanctioned and paid to her. In paragraph 3 of the said counter-affidavit it is, however, stated that the provisions of New Scheme of come under the purview of paragraph 8 of the Resolution, contained in Annexure 5 which is effective from 1-7-1985. Hence the Government servant whose death occurs prior to 30-6-1985 is only entitled to Rs.96.000/- under the provisions of paragraph 2 (b) of the resolution. 7. As the husband of the petitioner died on 6-8-1994. I am unable to appreciate the last contention of the State in the counter-affidavit. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died on 6-8-1994 after rendering continuous service since 1962, i. e. much more than 29 years. Thus, the stand of the State in the counter-affidavit that the Government servant dying prior to 30.6.1985 is only entitled to get Rs.96,000/- according to the provision of paragraph 2 (b) of the resolution, is wholly irrelevant. Paragraph 2 (b) of the Resolution provides for deduction of Rs.80/- from the monthly salary of the employees and officers other than Class IV employees and for payment of lump sum of Rs.96,000/- to the nominee/legal heirs of the Government servant died during ten years of his service or during ten years from the date of inclusion in the scheme. 8. It is not disputed that a sum of rs.807- was deducted from the monthly salary of the husband of the petitioner, who was an Officer in the Bihar administrative Service and that he had rendered qualifying service for payment of lump sum of Rs.96,000/- to his nominee/legal heirs which, was, in fact, has been paid. Paragraph 3 (e) of the Resolution provides that if a Government servant dies after 29 years of service or after 29 years from the date of inclusion in this scheme, his nominee/legal heirs would be paid the aforementioned lump-sum amount plus 75% of the amount deposited by him, including the interest thereon. Paragraph 3 (e) of the Resolution provides that if a Government servant dies after 29 years of service or after 29 years from the date of inclusion in this scheme, his nominee/legal heirs would be paid the aforementioned lump-sum amount plus 75% of the amount deposited by him, including the interest thereon. Undisputedly, the husband of the petitioner, who was Government servant, died after 29 years of service, which was sufficient to make his nominee/legal heir entitled for payment of 75% of the amount deposited by him, including the interest therein, besides the lump sum amount of Rs.96,000/- under paragraph 3 (e) of the resolution. 9. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show any provision in the Resolution which would debar the nominee/legal heirs of the deceased Government Servant from payment of 75% of the amount deposited by him, including the interest thereon, besides the lump-sum amount. 10. Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the payment of the aforesaid amount compelling the widow of the said Government servant, namely, the petitioner to knock the door of this court by filing the present writ application. 11. In the said circumstance, in my opinion, the petitioner is also entitled for penal interest at the rate of 12%, besides the principal amount and the interest, as per the afore-mentioned provisions, contained in paragraph 3 (e)of the Resolution and also for a cost which is assessed at Rs.2,000- (two thousand ). 12. In the result, the writ application is allowed with costs and the impugned order (Annexure-1) is quashed with courts. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner 75% of us 2 amount deposited by her late husband along with the interest aforementioned and the cost aforementioned within a fortnight of receipt of a copy of this judgement/order. Petition Allowed.