ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present writ petition is preferred by the widow of Martyr Vijay Kumar, Constable (293), who died on 2-11-2007 in a naxalite ambush attack. According to the petitioner, after the death of her husband, she was blessed with a male child namely; Anurag on 8-2-2008. As per sub-rule (5) Rule 5 of the NRrhlxढ+ ¼iqfyl deZpkjh oxZ&vlk/kkj.k ifjokj fuo`fRr&osru½ fu;e] 1965 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1965’), which mandates that tuition fees of the children of a Martyr, who died in such extraordinary circumstances, would be borne by the State till they attain the age of 21 years. Pursuant to the said Rules, 1965, the circular was issued by the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) on 27-1-2011 to implement such Rules and on the basis of submission of fees receipt, it was directed that the same would be reimbursed under the head of salary and allowances. Subsequently, a letter was issued to the petitioner to return the amount of Rs.18,900/- and Rs.22,800/-. 2. According to the State, such letter was issued pursuant to the circular dated 26-8-2013 (Annexure-R/2) issued by the PHQ wherein the amount was to be adjusted/paid since was not shown as such the recovery was ordered. 3. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the Group Insurance, which was to be paid for such untimely death was paid on 27-1-2009. The petitioner, therefore, has claimed interest on the delayed payment, as the payment was made virtually after more than a year. 4. Reply of the State would show that after the death of Vijay Kumar along with other Constables on 2-11-2007, they sent a communication to the Oriental Insurance Company on 8-11-2007 and subsequently on 16-11-2007 the payment schedule was followed. Initially name of the deceased was shown as ‘Vinod Shukla’. Subsequently, on 1-12-2007 it was corrected as ‘Vijay Shukla’. Annexure – R/7 would show that on 12-11-2008 the amount was received by the State and subsequently on 27-1-2009 the same was paid to the petitioner. 5. The submission of the petitioner is that the Rules having been in force, recovery of fees cannot be ordered for. Learned counsel would submit that it is the State to organise under which head the amount is to be paid/adjusted. He would submit that for no fault of the petitioner the payment of Group Insurance has been delayed, therefore, interest be levied on the respective parties. 6. Learned counsel would submit that it is the State to organise under which head the amount is to be paid/adjusted. He would submit that for no fault of the petitioner the payment of Group Insurance has been delayed, therefore, interest be levied on the respective parties. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the agreement contains arbitration clause that in case of any dispute the matter will be decided by the Arbitrator and the policy also contemplates that no interest would be paid. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The husband of the petitioner died on 2-11-2007 in a naxalite ambush and after his death, the petitioner was blessed with a male child on 8-2-2008. The Rules, 1965, which is a benevolent provision, contemplates that when any member of the police dies while controlling the unruly crowd, disputes, fighting with the enemies, the children of those police personnel would be entitled to get free education within the Chhattisgarh schools & colleges uptill 21 years of age. Rule 5 specifically speaks about it. Subsequent thereto, a circular was issued by the PHQ on 27-1-2011 that as per Rule 5(5) of the Rules, 1965 the police personnel who martyred, their children would be entitled to get free education uptill the age of 21 years within the Chhattisgarh schools & colleges and the payment should be made under the head of salary & allowances on production of receipts. Pursuant thereto it appears that since the husband of the petitioner died in the naxalite ambush an amount of Rs.18,900/- and Rs.22,800/- was paid. 9. Subsequently, the State sought for recovery of the amount on the basis of letter dated 26-8-2013 (Annexure – R/2), which was written by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Welfare), PHQ, Raipur, wherein all police units of Chhattisgarh were informed to recover the amount so paid because in the Rules, 1965 under which head the payment was required to be made was not clear, therefore, the petitioner was served with a letter Annexure – P/11 whereby the aforesaid amount was sought to be recovered and was directed to deposit the same. 10. 10. Reading of the Rules, 1965, which is applicable and benevolent for the family members of the police personnel who died in harness while controlling the unruly crowd, disputes, facing with the enemies, their children were allowed to get free education uptill the age of 21 years in the schools and colleges of Chhattisgarh. The circular was also issued by the State to comply with the same. Subsequently, the circular dated 26-8-2013 (Annexure – R/2) was issued to recover the amount. The said circular purports that under which head the amount is to be paid is not clear, as such, the amount so paid uptill should be recovered. The Rules, 1965 having force of law the same cannot be superseeded by such simple letter. Even otherwise, the Rules, 1965 being a benevolent delegated legislation and meant for the family members of the police personnel who died in naxalite menace are required to be protected and benefit can be granted. 11. The reason assigned in the letter dated 26-8-2013 cannot be appreciated and the son of the deceased employee, who is the beneficiary, cannot be allowed to be a scapegoat for the reason that it is not the problem of the beneficiary that under which head the State is going to pay. If the Rules, 1965 provide and it is in the backdrop of the fact that it has been enacted it has to be carried forward in its true spirit and objective only for the reason that the head is not known, which is primarily for the Department of Finance to decide. The beneficiary cannot be deprived of that. Accordingly, the letter dated 24-1-2014 (Annexure – P/11) wherein the recovery has been made to the tune of Rs.18.900/- and Rs.22,800/- is quashed. 12. Now coming back to the interest for the late payment of Group Insurance. The facts would show that after the death took place on 2-11-2007, the State sent an information to the Oriental Insurance Company on 8-11-2007 mentioning that 10 police personnel died while fighting with the naxalites and the insurance amount may be remitted forthwith. Again letter dated 16-11-2007 was sent to the Insurance Company wherein name of the husband of the petitioner has been typed as ‘Vinod Shukla’, which was got corrected as ‘Vijay Kumar Shukla’ and sent a letter dated 1-12-2007 (Annexure–R/5) wherein the Insurance Company was requested to settle the claim. Again letter dated 16-11-2007 was sent to the Insurance Company wherein name of the husband of the petitioner has been typed as ‘Vinod Shukla’, which was got corrected as ‘Vijay Kumar Shukla’ and sent a letter dated 1-12-2007 (Annexure–R/5) wherein the Insurance Company was requested to settle the claim. The communication of the Insurance Company dated 12-11-2008 (Annexure–R/7) is on record wherein the final settlement amount was sent to the PHQ. It contains the details of cheque, amount, etc. Thereafter, the payment was given to the petitioner on 27-1-2009, which is evident from the letter Annexure – P/4. Thus, the widow of the deceased police personnel has sought for interest on the delayed payment. 13. The contention of the Insurance Company that no interest could have been paid and in case of any dispute arose as to the quantum to be paid under the policy liability, it is to be referred to the Arbitrator. The defence raised by the Insurance Company is completely absurd specifically in view of the fact that claim was not for any difference of quantum, but it was for the delay, which was withheld by the officers of the Insurance Company or by reluctancy when some one sat over the issue. The record would show that the State immediately informed about the incident and raised the claim before the Insurance Company on 8-11-2007 so as to settle the claim in favour of the beneficiaries. Thereafter, reminders were also sent and eventually the payment was made almost after one year on 12-11-2008. There is no explanation as to why the officers sat over the issue that too in such a sensitive issue. 14. It appears that feeling of bounty prevailed over and the respondent Insurance Company forgot to assess that the husband of the petitioner has lost his life while fighting with the naxalites and general people are safe for those sacrifices. The Insurance Company is required to be more sensitive in the case of like nature and despite reminders when they become dormant it only shows the insensibility, which cannot be accepted. Therefore, in my considered view the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest to the petitioner from 12-11-2007 to 12-11-2008 i.e. till the settlement was made at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of insurance which has been granted to the petitioner. 15. Therefore, in my considered view the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest to the petitioner from 12-11-2007 to 12-11-2008 i.e. till the settlement was made at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of insurance which has been granted to the petitioner. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).