K LALITHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of late A.S. Radhakrishnan, who was an employee of the Panchayat Common Service. He died while in service. While in service, he was a subscriber of the group insurance scheme of the 2nd respondent. Monthly premium for the group insurance scheme was being deducted from the salary of the petitioner's husband every month without default. After his death, when insurance money due under the scheme to the petitioner was not paid, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) When the matter came up on 9.9.2010, after hearing, I passed the following interim order:

(3.) Today, the additional 4th respondent, on the basis of an affidavit stated to have been filed, submits that the last pay certificate of the petitioner from the Sreemoolanagaram Grama Panchayat from where he was transferred to the 4th respondent Panchayat did not contain the policy number of the petitioner's husband and that is why the Panchayat could not pay the premia to the 2nd respondent in time. According to them, if at all there is default, that is on the part of the then Secretary of the Panchayat, for which the Panchayat should not be penalised. I am of opinion that that does not absolve the Panchayat from the liability, since the default is for 15 months. For 15 months, the Panchayat had retained the premia amount deducted from the petitioner's husband without any authority. As a result, the petitioner was deprived of the insurance money. I am of opinion that the petitioner cannot be directed to suffer for the fault of the Panchayat or its Secretary. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioner should get her insurance money either from the 2nd respondent or the Panchayat. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondents 1 to 3 shall see that the insurance money due to the petitioner is paid within one month from today. It would be open to respondent 1 to 3 to see that the money so paid to the petitioner is recovered from the Panchayat or any employee of the Panchayat, who is responsible for the non-remittance of the deducted premia to the 2nd respondent. If the amount is recovered from the Panchayat, it would be open to the Panchayat to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the employee concerned, if he is responsible for the same.