JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.8.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 930 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant to file civil suit for realization of the amount paid to the dependents of late Neolal Bedia. 2. Brief facts:- The appellant-company is a registered company under the Companies Act. Respondent no.2 is the daughter-in-law of late Neolal Bedia, who was working under the appellant-company and died on 20.3.2003 in an accident. Late Neolal Bedia was an employee under the appellant-company designated as Fan Khalasi. For the year 2002-03, a Memorandum of Understanding regarding Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPAIS) was signed between the appellant-company and the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ranchi, for the period of one year commencing from 31.3.2002 and expiring on 30.3.2003. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) provided for payment of insured amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the dependent of policy holder in the event of accidental death. 3. Late Neolal Bedia died on 20.3.2003 and his dependents filed GPAIS claim before the appellant-company. By letter dated 5.3.2005, the appellant-company had forwarded the same to the respondent-Insurance Company, stating that the required documents would further be forwarded on receipt of the same from the area concerned. Thereafter the insurance claim in respect of late Neolal Bedia was forwarded by the appellant-company, vide letter dated 29.7.2005. The respondent-Insurance Company, vide letter dated 27.3.2006 followed by another letter dated 8.12.2006, required certain documents to be furnished to them. In compliance of the aforesaid letters, the appellant-company had forwarded documents requesting to settle the claim within one month as per the MOU. The respondent-Insurance Company, vide letter dated 27.12.2006, rejected the insurance claim in respect of late Neolal Bedia on the ground that the claim has been intimated after three months of the accident. 4. Since the claim was not finalized, Abulash Devi, wife of late Neolal Bedia, filed writ application in W.P. (S) No. 4273 of 2006, which was disposed of with the observation that Abulash Devi should file all the documents relating to her claim before the authority of the appellant-company. In spite of filing of the documents, group insurance has not been paid. In spite of filing of the documents, group insurance has not been paid. The said Abulash Devi filed another writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2008 and the said writ petition was allowed holding that the interse dispute between the appellant-company and the respondent-Insurance Company cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and Central Coalfields Ltd. has to deal with the Insurance Company and take appropriate step. Learned Single Judge, however, directed the appellant to pay the amount of group insurance to the said Abulash Devi with statutory interest from the date it was payable till the date of payment. The said Abulash Devi filed contempt petition and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the said Abulash Devi died and in her place, Yashoda Devi, dauther-in-law of late Neolal Bedia, was substituted by the High Court, vide order dated 3.2.2012. In compliance of the order of the Court, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 8,92,246.53. The appellant-company took up the matter with the respondent-Insurance Company for remittance of the paid amount by letter dated 28.3.2012 (Annexure – 13). Relevant portion of Annexure – 13, letter dated 28.3.2012, reads as under:- "This has reference to this office letter no. 639 & 5004 dated 07-02-2007 & 27-12-2007 respectively addressed to the Sr. Divisional Manager, OICL requesting to settle the claim of Smt. Abulash Devi W/o Late Neolal Bedia, Ex-Khalasi, Saunda Colliery of Barka Sayal Area in view of the order dated 27-11-2006 of Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand in W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2008 filed by her against CCL & others. But we did not receive any reply from your office inspite of continuous persuasion. You were also requested to settle the claim as at the relevant period the MOU which was operative for the period 2002-03 did not mention anything regarding the time limitation for submission of the claims by the claimant under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. Hence, rejection on the ground that claim of Late Bedia was not received within 3 months of the death is not justified. Further you were also informed that the petitioner has filed a contempt petition but no response was received from your end. Hence, rejection on the ground that claim of Late Bedia was not received within 3 months of the death is not justified. Further you were also informed that the petitioner has filed a contempt petition but no response was received from your end. Now in compliance to the judgment dated 28/07/2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2008 the following amount has been paid on 19/02/2012 to the Advocate of Yasoda Devi, daughter-in-law of Late Neolal Bedia, Ex-Fan Khalasi of Saunda D Colliery in terms of I.A. No. 119 of 2012. As a matter of fact during pendency of the contempt petition Abulash Devi died and in her place Yasoda Devi, daughter-in-law was substituted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03/02/2012. (i) Insured amount under Group Accident Insurance Scheme : Rs. 5,00,000/- (ii) Cost : Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Statutory interest @ 6% per annum (21/01/2007 to 31/10/2011) : Rs. 1,43,342.46/- (iv) Compensatory interest @ 10% per annum : Rs. 2,38,904.07/- Total amount Rs. 8,92,246.53/- TDS (-) : Rs. 76,449/- …………………………." But the respondent-Insurance Company by the impugned letter dated 13.6.2012 refused their liability to pay the amount. 5. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed W.P. (S) No. 930 of 2013. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that as per the terms and conditions of the MOU, since the Insurance Company is refusing to reimburse the amount and the claim of the appellant-company depends upon the interpretation of the terms of the agreement entered into between the appellant-company and the Insurance Company and such dispute between the parties cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant-company has preferred this LPA. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ananda Sen, contended that learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that MOU does not specify any limitation period and while so, the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is palpably erroneous. It was further submitted that there was no clause under the relevant MOU to submit insurance claim within a time period and while so, the respondent-Insurance Company could not have rejected the claim on the ground of delay/limitation and ought not to have denied the insurance claim due to death of the workman. It was further submitted that there was no clause under the relevant MOU to submit insurance claim within a time period and while so, the respondent-Insurance Company could not have rejected the claim on the ground of delay/limitation and ought not to have denied the insurance claim due to death of the workman. It was further submitted that the entire premium amount in respect of the employees about Rs. 1,08,53,350/- under relevant MOU was deposited with the respondent-Insurance Company, out of which only Rs. 70,00,000/- has been paid to the dependents of the employees who died due to accidental death during the relevant year and that being the position, the respondent-Insurance Company ought not to have withheld the reimbursement of insured/interest amount/cost to the appellant-company and the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the reimbursement depends upon the interpretation of the terms of MOU. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that as per the terms and conditions of MOU, the respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount and in the instant case, the claim has been intimated to the respondent-Insurance Company nearly two years after the death of the workman and therefore, the respondent-Insurance Company cannot entertain the claim on account of late intimation. Learned counsel further submitted that since the dispute pertains to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of MOU, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant-company to approach the civil court. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the impugned order and materials on record. Admittedly, the MOU for the year 2002-03 regarding the Group Accident Insurance Scheme was signed between the appellant-company and the respondent-Insurance Company on 15.2.2002. The MOU was valid for the period of one year commencing from 31.3.2002 and expiring on 30.3.2003. Late Neolal Bedia died on 20.3.2003 and his case squarely falls during the currency of the period of the said MOU. The appellant-company informed the death of late Neolal Bedia to the respondent-Insurance Company by letter dated 5.3.2005 (Annexure-2). Subsequently by letter dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure-3), the insurance claim along with the required documents was forwarded by the appellant-company to the respondent-Insurance Company. Vide Annexure-4 series letter dated 27.3.2006, Insurance Company requested the appellant-company to submit further documents. The appellant-company informed the death of late Neolal Bedia to the respondent-Insurance Company by letter dated 5.3.2005 (Annexure-2). Subsequently by letter dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure-3), the insurance claim along with the required documents was forwarded by the appellant-company to the respondent-Insurance Company. Vide Annexure-4 series letter dated 27.3.2006, Insurance Company requested the appellant-company to submit further documents. Vide Annexure-6 dated 27.12.2006, the respondent-Insurance Company rejected the insurance claim on the ground that the accident claim has been intimated to them after three months. The letter rejecting the insurance claim on the ground that the death has been intimated to the respondent-Insurance Company after three months is perse erroneous. The MOU dated 15.2.2002 does not specify any time limit for making the claim. There was no clause in the MOU to submit the insurance claim within a time period and the respondent-Insurance Company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground of delay/limitation. 9. In compliance of the order of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2008, the appellant company has paid the amount of Rs. 8,92,246.53 (vide Annexure-12) and raised the claim with the respondent-Insurance Company for reimbursement of the said amount of Rs. 8,92,246.53, vide letter dated 28.3.2012 and the subsequent letters. Reiterating its stand that the claim has been repudiated as No Claim due to late intimation, the respondent-Insurance Company sent the communication saying that the claim is not payable and refused to reimburse the amount. As pointed out earlier, the rejection of the insurance claim on the ground that the insurance claim of late Neolal Bedia was not received within three months of the death is not justified and the Group Insurance being a social welfare measure, the respondent-Insurance Company was not justified in rejecting the claim and also in refusing to reimburse the claim amount. 10. When there is no clause in the MOU prescribing time limit for making insurance claim, the respondent-Insurance Company was not right in rejecting the insurance claim. When the terms of the MOU does not contain any clause prescribing the time limit for making the insurance claim, the payment of insurance does not involve any interpretation of the terms of the MOU. The learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the dispute between the parties involves interpretation of the terms of MOU and in directing the appellant-company to approach the civil court. 11. The learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the dispute between the parties involves interpretation of the terms of MOU and in directing the appellant-company to approach the civil court. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd & another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd & other, (2004) 3 SCC 553 held that once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If by the impugned repudiation of the claim, the respondent-Insurance Company being an instrumentality of the State, a public sector undertaking, has acted unreasonably, certainly the writ is maintainable and writ court can issue suitable direction to set right the arbitrary actions of the 1st respondent. 12. Observing that having regard to the facts of the case, the Court has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition, in the case of ABL International Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 , Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 27 and 28 thereof summarized the legal principles as to the maintainability of the writ petitions as under:- "27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See – Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction." 13. In the instant case, the respondent-Insurance Company is a Public Sector Undertaking. As an instrumentality of the State, the respondent-Insurance Company was discharging the public duty and it has a duty to act fairly. As pointed out earlier, the respondent-Insurance Company unjustly turned down the insurance claim on the ground that it is time barred even when MOU does not stipulate any such time limit. To inform that the insurance claim of late Neolal Bedia is time barred, respondent-Insurance Company has taken 21 months even to repudiate the insurance claim. We are conscious that normally the writ petition praying for refund/reimbursement of money against the State or instrumentality of the State by issuing a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. In the present case, since the contract has been unjustly repudiated and having regard to the fact that group insurance of the workmen is a social welfare measure, direction is to be issued to the respondent-Insurance Company to reimburse the amount of Rs. 8,92,246.53 with 6% interest per annum. Since there was a delay on the part of the appellant in making the insurance claim (late Neolal Bedia died on 20.3.2003 and insurance claim was made on 23.3.2005), for the said period of delay, i.e. from 20.3.2003 to 23.3.2005, the appellant is not entitled to get interest. 14. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 930 of 2013 dated 19.8.2013 is set aside and this LPA is allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 14. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 930 of 2013 dated 19.8.2013 is set aside and this LPA is allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 8,92,246.53 with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum (less the interest for the period from 20.3.2003 to 23.3.2005 on group insurance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs) till the date of payment.