JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. That the petitioner - respondent's husband died on 6.3.1995. He was covered by a Group Insurance Scheme sponsored by the Insurance Company insuring Assam Co-operative Union and the Chief Executive Officer of the Assam State Co-operative Union beneficiaries being its employees. After the death of the husband of the petitioner - respondent, it came to the knowledge that the aforesaid Group Insurance Scheme lapsed due to non-payment of the premium by the employer in time although the employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner - respondent has paid the insurance premium regularly as the contribution of the premium has been regularly deducted from his salary, subsequently the Group Insurance Scheme was revived by the employer. This fact have been noted by the learned Single Judge to be a admitted position of the facts. The submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the revival of the policy on 15.3.1995 has been on the basis of the declaration given by the employer that all the employees are alive on that date, whereas in fact the husband of the petitioner has expired on 6.3.1995 and thus there being a false declaration the policy could not have been given effect to. The submission of the learned counsel for appellant is without any substance in view of the fact that the revival of the policy on 15.3.1995 operated from the retrospective date. This position has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant before us. That being the case, the policy shall be deemed to have been operative from the date it has expired, which certainly falls before the death of the petitioner's husband. That apart if the general declaration is given by the employer in regard to service of its employees, if declaration in regard to one is not found true, later on it can not be said that employer acted in fraud and thus policy can not be revived particularly when premium due was paid by the employee on due date. That being the case, the petitioner's husband was covered under the Group Insurance Scheme and the appellant cannot avoid its responsibility for payment of the amount due under the policy to the deceased employees' wife. That being the case, the petitioner's husband was covered under the Group Insurance Scheme and the appellant cannot avoid its responsibility for payment of the amount due under the policy to the deceased employees' wife. Apart from this the person who is responsible, i.e. employer has not deposited the premium which have been recovered from the salary of the employee in time, the employee cannot be made to suffer who has committed not default on his part. 2. That being the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed