ORDER: The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his File No.Mu.Mu.A7.3469/90 dated 13.9.1991 and in Na. Ka. A7/8055/92 dated 19.10.1992, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the amount of Rs.5,000 under the Insurance-cum-retirement Benefit Special Scheme to the petitioner, who is the nominee of his late mother Smt. Anjalai Ammal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that his mother Anjalai joined the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme with the respondents on 31.3.1987; that she was paying the monthly subscription fee of Rs.10 to the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Gunavasal as per the directions of the second respondent regularly till 4.4.1989 and his mother died on 24.4.1989; that his mother Anjalai nominated him to receive the insurance benefit in the event of her death; that accordingly, he is entitled to receive the benefits amounting to Rs.5,000. 3. The petitioner would further submit that immediately after his mother’s death, he approached the second respondent on 18.7.1989 and demanded the payment of insurance amount payable to his deceased mother in pursuance of the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme taken by her with the respondents. But the respondents neither paid the insured amount to him nor sent any reply till 12.9.1991. But, however, on 13.9.1991, he received a letter from the second respondent stating that his mother paid the monthly subscription for April and May, 1988 on 3.8.1988 after a lapse of six months and hence she ceased to be a member of the above said insurance scheme. 4. But, however, on 13.9.1991, he received a letter from the second respondent stating that his mother paid the monthly subscription for April and May, 1988 on 3.8.1988 after a lapse of six months and hence she ceased to be a member of the above said insurance scheme. 4. The petitioner would further submit that during June and July 1988, the VAOs did not attend to their office on account of strike as a result of which, his mother was not able to pay the amount to the VAO, who is the competent authority to receive the monthly instalments and the same was explained not only to the respondents but also to the higher-ups and in spite of several representations to the respondents, ultimately through the Legal Aid Taluk Committee, Chidambaram, he approached the second respondent to pay the insurance amount on a specific representation and only then the second respondent, Tahsildar, sent a reply dated 19.10.1992 in his Roc.No.A7/8055/92 stating that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme on ground (i) that his mother gave her age wrongly as 55; (ii) that the nominee has to claim the insurance benefits within one month from the date of the death of the insured, but in the instant case, the claim was made after three months; and (iii) that the amount of Rs.30 collected from the insurance by the VAO has been deposited in the Treasury on 28.4.1989 that is after four days from the date of death of the insured. On such false and flimsy grounds, the respondents decided not to disburse the amount without even giving an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard and hence would ultimately pray for the relief extracted supra. 5. On such false and flimsy grounds, the respondents decided not to disburse the amount without even giving an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard and hence would ultimately pray for the relief extracted supra. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents, besides generally denying the allegations contained in the writ petition would also specifically allege that the deceased Anjalai, wife of Pakkiri was enrolled in the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme, on 31.3.1987 and that her number was 2186/87; that at the time of enrollment, her age was 48 in her application; that she died on 24.4.1989; that she paid Rs.260 in the scheme from 31.3.1987 to 4.4.1989; that the petitioner is the only son of the insured who was the nominee and he applied for the insured amount of Rs.5,000; that the proposals resubmitted to the Collector dated 5.8.1991 along with the reply to the clarifications raised by the Collector had been sent and the same had been finally rejected on 26.8.1991 thus returning the claim for payment of Rs.5,000 for reasons assigned and as such, the petitioner was informed in his office K.Dis.A7/3469/90 dated 4.9.1993 that he is not eligible for payment. 6. Further it is submitted in the counter that against the said endorsement, the petitioner appealed to the Legal Aid Board in Taluk Office reference A7/8055/92, dated 19.10.1992 and thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition. Regarding the enrolment of the deceased Tmt.Anjalai on 31.3.1987 assigning the No.2182/87 in her favour and the monthly subscription through the VAO, Gunavasal and the total payment of Rs.260 made by her as monthly subscriptions from 31.3.1987 to 4.4.1989 and her death on 24.4.1989, and the nominee being the petitioner, the counter would admit these facts as true. The counter would also further state that on the application of the petitioner claiming payment of the insurance claim, proposals were submitted to the first respondent, the authority competent to sanction, but he rejected the same and this fact was duly informed to the nominee, the petitioner. 7. The counter would also further state that on the application of the petitioner claiming payment of the insurance claim, proposals were submitted to the first respondent, the authority competent to sanction, but he rejected the same and this fact was duly informed to the nominee, the petitioner. 7. The VAOs’ participation in the ‘Jacteejeo’ strike from 21.6.1988 to 22.7.1988 is also admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit; that the deceased had remitted the premium from April, 1988 only on 3.8.1988 to the VAO after a lapse of three months; that according to G.O.Ms.No.1558 dated 27.7.1988, the individual will not cease to be a member for the belated payment and she continuously paid the dues subsequently till her death and this fact was reported in Taluk Office reference A7/3469/90 dated 6.8.1991; that since the proposals were rejected by the Collector, the representation of the nominee was not considered. 8. The further averments of the counter are that at the time of enrolment of membership, the age of the deceased was noted as 48 and it was accepted by the second respondent on 31.3.1987. But during the claim, the age of the deceased was verified with respect to family card and electoral rolls, when it came to be known that she was more than 55 at the time of enrolment and this fact was reported to the first respondent and hence the first respondent rejected the claim on 8.5.1991 referring the Government instructions in letter 14380/VI/88-7, dated 1.7.1989. On such and some other reasons assigned, the respondent would ultimately pray for dismissing the writ petition with costs. 9. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (writs) appearing for the respondents would lay emphasis on their respective pleadings and would seek the respective reliefs as sought for by each of them. On the part of the petitioner, the learned counsel would argue that the claim application is made by the petitioner for the payment of the amount of Rs.5,000 on the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme in which his late mother Anjalai was a contributor and effected the monthly payments of the premium till her death on 24.4.1989. On the part of the petitioner, the learned counsel would argue that the claim application is made by the petitioner for the payment of the amount of Rs.5,000 on the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme in which his late mother Anjalai was a contributor and effected the monthly payments of the premium till her death on 24.4.1989. In spite of he being the only legal heir of the deceased Anjalai, the insured, the respondents refused to effect the payment for which he is entitled in law and would pray for a direction to be issued to the respondents to disburse the said amount of Rs.5,000 under the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme to the petitioner. 10. On the contrary, it would be argued on the part of the respondents that the petitioner’s deceased mother Anjalai had declared her age wrongly as 55; that within the stipulated time of one month from the date of the death of the insured, the nominee has not claimed the said amount; that an amount of Rs.30 being the contribution for three months collected by the VAO from the insured had been deposited in the treasury on 28.4.1989 that is four days after the death of the deceased Anjalai. On these grounds, the first respondent as per his letter dated 8.5.1991 passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 11. A fair assessment of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case based on the pleadings of parties and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, would disclose that it is an admitted case of the respondents that the deceased Anjalai, the mother of the petitioner, was a member of the Insurance-Retirement Benefit Special Scheme and the holder of NO.2182/1987 with effects from 31.3.1987 till her death on 24.4.1989 and that regularly she was making the payment of the monthly subscription fee of Rs.10 through the VAO of Gunavasal. It is further admitted on the part of the respondents that the petitioner is the nominee of the deceased Anjalai Ammal being her only son and that he is entitled to get the amount, but for certain defects which were allowed to occur in the payment of the amount by the respondents, they are (i) that his mother Anjalai gave her age as 48 wrongly; that on verification of the electoral list and with reference to the family card, it came to be known that her age was 55 at the time of enrolment and this fact on being reported to the first respondent by the second respondent, the first respondent rejected the claim on 8.5.1991 based on the Government instructions in letter dated 1.7.1989. 12. For the above accusations, it is the admitted case on the part of the respondents that the age of Tmt.Anjalai was noted as 48 and the same was accepted by the second respondent on 31.3.1987 as glaringly seen in para No.10 of the counter affidavit. But the case of the respondents is that after her death at the time that the petitioner came with the claim of payment, on verification of the family card and electoral rolls, it came to be known that at the time of enrolment, her age was more than 55 and hence the matter having been reported by the second respondent to the first respondent and ultimately the claim of the petitioner was rejected on this score. The age of the petitioner as 48 at the time of enrolment had been accepted by the respondents and her name had been enrolled in the scheme; that only at the time of claiming the insurance amount, the second respondent is said to have verified the age with reference to the family card and electoral rolls wherein the age of the deceased was different. 13. Moreover, the entries effected in the family card and the electoral rolls have no authenticity since the enumerator at the time of making entries into these documents does not verify the age of the persons noted in the family card and electoral rolls. Whatever is orally given by others, they enter into these documents and it has no authenticity since not based on any reliable evidence. Whatever is orally given by others, they enter into these documents and it has no authenticity since not based on any reliable evidence. Since the deceased is dead, to hold these documents to be reliable ones and to accept them as against the actual entries effected by the respondents themselves at the time of enrolment, absolutely bereft of opportunity afforded to the deceased to rebut the allegations is neither legal nor based on any sound principle. It is pathetic to note that this allegation against the deceased had been broughtforth after her death and at the time that the payment of the insurance benefit was to be effected in favour of the nominee. Neither the entries of the family card nor that of the electoral rolls are either infallible or conclusive proofs of the age of the deceased. 14. Therefore, besides the arguments of the respondents not being supported by any valid or tangible ground, they are further estopped from going into such questions having admitted at the time of enrolment, the age of the person enrolled as 48 which if at all was doubted should have been verified prior to enrolment and not after the death of the person enrolled and at the time that the payment was to be made in favour of the nominee. Further having arrived at such conclusions, the respondents have also violated the principles of natural justice thus having not afforded the deceased during her life time any opportunity to rebut such baseless allegations and hence at this score also the case of the respondents is rejected as not on justifiable grounds. 15. The other allegation is that within one month from the date of death of the insured, the claim was not made and the same was made only after three months from the date of death of insured. The respondents have not rested their arguments on any provision of law citing the same and hence there is no basis for such arguments at all. If at all there is a bar created by law, it should not only be pleaded, but also proved and established by the respondents, and absolutely no such proof has been brought forth. The respondents have not rested their arguments on any provision of law citing the same and hence there is no basis for such arguments at all. If at all there is a bar created by law, it should not only be pleaded, but also proved and established by the respondents, and absolutely no such proof has been brought forth. But from the order dated 8.5.1991 of the first respondent, District Collector, it comes to be proved that G.O.No.2015 dated 18.9.1984 which required the claimant to make the claim application within a period of one month after the death of the insured and in this case since the deceased was dead on 24.4.1989 and the claim having been made on 18.7.1989, the same is lapsed on account of delay. 16. The Government Order cited above is only an executive instruction and not a mandatory statutory provision of law and so far as the instructions imparted under the Government Order are concerned, it cannot act as a bar and on valid reasons assigned, the delay could be condoned and the petitioner has offered valid reasons of being ignorant of such provisions and, therefore, under this score also, the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. 17. The last point under which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents is that an amount of Rs.30 collected from the insured by the VAO had been deposited in the treasury on 28.4.1989, that is four days after the death of the insured. Unless during the life time the insured had paid the monthly premiums to the VAO, who is competent to collect and remit in the treasury, he would not have come forward to remit the same on 28.4.1989. For the delayed remittance made on the part of the VAO, neither the deceased nor the claimant could be held responsible. For this charge also, what comes to be known is that till her death, the deceased had promptly remitted the monthly premium and hence rejection of the claim of the petitioner on account of this charge also cannot be held valid. 18. In short, the petitioner has been denied of his due on untenable baseless and frivolous grounds. For this charge also, what comes to be known is that till her death, the deceased had promptly remitted the monthly premium and hence rejection of the claim of the petitioner on account of this charge also cannot be held valid. 18. In short, the petitioner has been denied of his due on untenable baseless and frivolous grounds. Further even those points under which the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for the payment of the amount of Rs.5,000, they have miserably failed to establish and hence necessarily this writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for by the petitioner. 19. Since the petitioner has been denied of the amount of Rs.5,000 as the insurance benefit of his late mother Anjalai ammal, which was due for him from the date of his application that is on 18.7.1989, it is but reasonable on the part of the respondent to pay the same in favour of the petitioner with sufficient interest and hence it is further ordered that the respondents should effect the payment of Rs.5,000 as the insurance benefit coupled with interest at 6 percent per annum from 18.7.1989 till the date of payment. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents to have withheld the amount that was due to the petitioner on the death of his mother who was the insured. Hence the petitioner is justified in calling for interference of this Court into the impugned orders passed by the respondents for the reasons assigned herebefore. In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.A7.3469/90 dated 13.9.1991 and that in Na.Ka.A7/8055/92 dated 18.10.1992 are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to effect payment of the insurance benefit to the petitioner amounting to Rs.5,000 with interest at six per cent per annum, from 18.3.1989 till the date of payment. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.20611 of 1993 is closed.