ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents by which they have denied the benefit of Government Service Group Insurance-cum-Saving Scheme, 2003 after the death of her husband Late Akhilesh Sharma. At the time of payment of retiral dues, the respondents have also deducted the amount of Rs. 83,532/- under the head of access payment, from the retiral dues , which is also under challenge in this petition and the petitioner is claiming refund of the same amount. 2. The husband of the petitioner Late Akhilesh Sharma was appointed as Revenue Inspector on 22.1.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar w.e.f. 26.7.2012. He was further promoted to the post of Tahsildar on 17.4.2015. After promotion, he was posted as Tahsildar (Instructor) in the Revenue Inspector Training School where he gave joining on 27.4.2015. He was due for retirement after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2015, but unfortunately he died 4 months back on 25.8.2015. From the date of appointment till death, he had completed 36 years, 7 months and 4 days of unblemished service. 3. During his service, the husband of petitioner had opted for Insurance Scheme introduced by the Government of Madhya Pradesh called as Government Service Group Insurance-cum-Saving Scheme, 2003. In the said Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), he used to deposit Rs. 200/- per month as insurance premium amount by way of deduction from his monthly salary. Under the said scheme after the retirement, he was entitled to get the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as Insured sum including premium amount along with interest. He was not paid the salary for last 10 months before his death as despite his posting in the Training School, Indore after promotion his LPC could not reached there and, hence, there was no deduction by the department under the head of "Insurance Premium". Before his promotion he was posted at Dewas and after his death, office at Dewas has deducted premium amount from the salary for 7 months only but the Principal of Training school has not deducted the premium amount for the period 3 months and because of which the policy has come to an end and vide order dated 8.8.2016, they have refunded only the premium amount without the insured sum payable under the scheme. The respondents have also deducted the amount of Rs. The respondents have also deducted the amount of Rs. 83,532/- from the retiral dues under the head of "Excess Payment" due to wrong fixation. Hence, present petition before this Court. 4. According to the respondents that after the death of petitioner's husband, 7 months' salary was paid by the Dewas Office from which the Insurance Premium was also deducted . Since the Principal, Training School, Indore did not receive the pay slips, therefore, the Insurance Premium could not be deducted for the period of 3 months. Under Clause 5 of the GIS Scheme if the monthly premium amount could not be paid by the employee due to any reason then he is not entitled for the benefit of Insurance scheme. At the time of payment of retiral dues the petitioner submitted an undertaking by permitting the respondents to deduct access amount from retiral dues . The Divisional Pension Office has raised an objection that there was a irregularity in pay fixation at the time of implementation of 6th pay commission therefore, the respondent has calculated the amount of Rs. 53,832/- under the head of "Excess Payment" and recovered along with interest Rs. 29,699/- in total Rs. 83,532/- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Vide order dated 17.4.2015, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Tahsildar and posted at RI Training School where he gave joining on 27.4.2015. Before the said promotion, he was posted at Dewas and he was not paid the salary from the Office of Dewas for the period of 7 months. The Office at Dewas has paid the 7 months' arrears of salary to the petitioner after deducting the Insurance Premium @ Rs. 200/- per month, therefore, it is articulate that it was obligatory on part of Principal RI Training school to deduct the premium amount from the arrears of 3 months salary paid to the petitioner. The said amount was not payable directly to the Department by the petitioner specially after the death of her husband. In the return, the respondent has admitted that the Principal, Revenue Inspector Training School, did not received the last pay served after joining of the husband of the petitioner and due to which the salary could not be released. Had the salary been released, the Principal would have deduced the amount of the premium also. In the return, the respondent has admitted that the Principal, Revenue Inspector Training School, did not received the last pay served after joining of the husband of the petitioner and due to which the salary could not be released. Had the salary been released, the Principal would have deduced the amount of the premium also. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 25.8.2015, therefore, he could not pay the premium amount. Had he been alive, the amount would have been deducted from the Office of RI Training School like Dewas Office. After the death of the petitioner, the Principal of school ought to have deduced the premium amount also. 7. The respondents have placed heavy reliance over para 5 of the Insurance Scheme, 2003 which provides that due to any reason if the payment was not made to the Government Employee, then it is the duty of the employee to deposit the premium amount under the Group Insurance Scheme and if he died during that period, he would not be entitled for the benefit of the Insurance Scheme and nominee would get only the amount deposited in the Scheme with interest. 8. The respondents have filed additional return alongwith copy of the order dated 4.7.2003 issued by the Finance Department clarifying certain conditions of the GIS Scheme, 2003 and according to which if deduction could not made by the Government or employee concern due to any reasons like absence , leave, suspension or any reasons then the arrears of premium would be recovered along with the interest on joining by the Government Employee and if he dies during such period then the amount of premium would be adjusted from his retiral dues. Clause 1 is reproduced below : ^^1- ;fn vfHknku dh olwyh fdlh ekg ;k vof/k ds fy, LoSfPNd vuqifLFkfr vlk/kkj.k vodk'k] Qjyks] fuyEcu ;k vU; fdlh Hkh otg ls osru ns;d ls laHko ugh gS rks ,sls cdk;k vfHknku dh olwyh okLrfod olwyh ds ekg rd C;kt yxk;k tkdj mfpr fdLrksa esa 'kkldh; lsod ds drZO; ij mifLFkr gksrs gh dh tk,xhA lkekU;r% ;g olwyh 3 leku fdLrksa esa lacaf/kr ekg ds vfHknku ds lkFk 3 ekg esa olwyh djuk laHko u gks rks dk;kZy; izeq[k ewy osru ds 50 izfr'kr tks ewy osru ds ,d frgkbZ jkf'k ls vf/kd u gks] jkf'k dh fdLr fu/kkZfjr dj ldasxsA rFkkfi fcuk osru ds vodk'k ij jgrs gq, ;fn 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q gks tkrh gS rks cdk;k vfHknku dh C;kt lfgr olwyh ykHkkFkhZ dks feyus okys Hkqxrku ls lek;ksftr gksxhA foyEc osru Hkqxrku dh fLFkfr esa vfHknku dh jkf'k ij C;kt ns; ugh gSA** 9. The aforesaid clause specifically provides that if premium is not paid due to any reason and employee dies then the amount of premium can be recovered by way of adjustment from the retiral dues. The case of the petitioner is on a much better footing then above eventuality. He was not paid the salary due to non receipt of LPC and by the time the LPC could be reached in his office, he died, therefore, neither petitioner nor her late husband were at fault to deposit the premium amount as it was liable to be paid by way of deduction from the salary, therefore, the respondents have adopted very hyper technical approach by denying the benefit of Insurance scheme to the wife of the deceased Government Employee i.e. petitioner. 10. The petitioner is held entitled to get the benefit of the GIS Scheme, 2003 as the husband of the petitioner was not at fault in depositing the premium amount. Therefore, in view of the above, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of GIS Scheme, 2003 to the petitioner after deducting the premium amount for the period of 3 months. 11. After the retirement, the respondents have also recovered the amount of Rs. 53,833/- along with the interest @ Rs. 29,699/- in total Rs. 83,532/- due to wrong fixation done w.e.f. 1.1.2006. According to the respondents w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the petitioner was paid the wages Rs. 12,930 + GP Rs. 11. After the retirement, the respondents have also recovered the amount of Rs. 53,833/- along with the interest @ Rs. 29,699/- in total Rs. 83,532/- due to wrong fixation done w.e.f. 1.1.2006. According to the respondents w.e.f. 1.1.2006, the petitioner was paid the wages Rs. 12,930 + GP Rs. 3,200/- whereas he was entitled to get Rs. 12,650/- + GP 3,200/- and this mistake perpetuated till his retirement. 12. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was not responsible for the said wrong fixation. It was not in his knowledge that he was getting salary on the basis of wrong pay fixation. At that time he was Class-III employee and died while working as a Class-III Employee, therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex Court passed in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 13. Therefore, the said amount is also liable to be refunded to the petitioner. However, this Court has only quashed the recovery part, the re-fixation done by the respondents is hereby maintained because the petitioner has not challenged the same on its merits. 14. Petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000.00 payable to the petitioner