Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 300 (GUJ)

Bhavnagar District Panchayat v. State of Gujarat

2018-01-29

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11453/2006 insofar as directing the appellant herein to make the payment under the Group Insurance Scheme on the death of the husband of the original petitioner, the original respondent no. 4-Bhavnagar District Panchayat has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the husband of the original petitioner was in the service of Health Department of Government of Gujarat as Medical Officer Class-II for the period from 01.08.1996 to 10.03.2003. That he died on 10.03.2003 in an accident. That the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee was denied the family pension, gratuity, group insurance amount etc. and therefore, the petitioner being widow of the deceased employee preferred the present Special Civil Application No. 11453/2006 before the learned Single Judge. That by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge observed and held that the original petitioner shall not be entitled to the family pension/gratuity, however shall be entitled to the amount under the group insurance as right from very beginning the premium was being deducted from the salary of the deceased employee and the Government continued to accept the premium amount or continued to deduct the amount from the salary of the original petitioner’s husband and continued to credit the said amount towards insurance premium and consequently the learned Single Judge has directed to make the payment under the group insurance scheme to the original petitioner-widow of the deceased employee. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as directing the original respondents including the appellant to make the payment under the group insurance scheme, the original respondent-Bhavnagar District Panchayat has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciated the fact that the group insurance scheme was not applicable to the deceased employee and therefore, he was not covered under the group insurance scheme. 3. Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciated the fact that the group insurance scheme was not applicable to the deceased employee and therefore, he was not covered under the group insurance scheme. It is submitted that as the deceased employee himself was the Head of the Department of the Primary Health Centre, when he was working, he himself was getting the insurance premium deducted which would not give right to the original petitioner being widow of the deceased employee to get the amount under the group insurance scheme. Making above submissions it is requested to admit/allow the present Letters Patent Appeal. No other submissions have been made. 4. We have heard Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at length. We have considered and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such by the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has held that the original petitioner being widow of the deceased employee was entitled to amount under the group insurance scheme. It is required to be noted that right from the beginning of his service, the amount of premium towards insurance premium was deducted from the salary of the original petitioner’s husband and it was credited to the scheme account and the said deduction was continued throughout the tenure of the service of the petitioner’s husband i.e. from 1997 to March, 2003. Thus, the petitioner’s husband was admitted to the scheme as member and his membership was accepted and continued by the original respondents for atleast 6 years. At no point of time any objection was raised that the amount of premium has wrongly been deducted and/or that the group insurance scheme shall not be applicable to him. Only after the death of the deceased employee and when the amount payable under the group insurance scheme was claimed, such objection has been raised belatedly. Such an objection was raised for the first time in the communication dated 29.03.2004 i.e. after the death of the deceased employee. Only after the death of the deceased employee and when the amount payable under the group insurance scheme was claimed, such objection has been raised belatedly. Such an objection was raised for the first time in the communication dated 29.03.2004 i.e. after the death of the deceased employee. Considering the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, when it is held on the ground of promissory estopple, raising the objection belatedly and by observing that subsequent on the ground of mistake is hit by vice of laches/delay and/or acquiescence and thereafter when the learned Single Judge has directed the original respondents including the appellant to pay the amount payable under the group insurance scheme to the original petitioner being widow of the deceased employee, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court. 4.1 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that as the deceased employee who was serving as a Medical Officer was the Head of the Department where he was working in the Primary Health Centre and therefore, the deceased employee himself was preparing the bills and sending it and was deducting the amount of insurance premium though the group insurance scheme was not applicable to him is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such no such case was pleaded even before the learned Single Judge. No such submissions were made. Such a submission is made that too orally before this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Apart from the above, the aforesaid cannot be accepted considering the fact that the insurance premium was deducted from the salary of the original petitioner's husband and continued to be deducted throughout the tenure of his service i.e. from 1997 to March 2003 and infact the said amount was credited to the scheme account. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No interference of this Court is called for. Under the circumstances, present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Civil Application No. 1178/2018 6. In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 1178/2018 also stands dismissed.