ABHA MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a widow, prays for appropriate direction in the present Writ Application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for grant of balance amount, as provided under M.P. Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1985 alongwith interest thereon.

(2.) PETITIONER 's husband was an Excise Officer, who passed away at an early age of 38 years, leaving behind the petitioner and two minor sons. It is averred by the petitioner that her husband, late Rajendra Maheshwari was covered under Family Benefit Fund Scheme, 1974 (hereafter referred to as 1974 scheme) when he entered in the State Government Service in the year 1979. According to petitioner, the deductions were made from his salary every month. In the year 1985, the State Government on the representation of the Government Employees, considered introduction of a scheme in the pattern of Government of India Scheme and with certain modifications introduced Madhya Pradesh Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 1985 Scheme). It is relevant here to state that prior to the introduction of the said scheme another scheme known as Government Servants Family Benefit Fund Scheme, 1975, was in vague. According to 1985 Scheme, the Government Servants belonging to Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV services were required to subscribe Rs. 80/ -, Rs. 60/ -, Rs. 50/ - and Rs. 30/ - respectively. According to 1985 Scheme, in case of death, while in service the dependents/family, is eligible for payment of a sum of Rs. 80,000/ -, Rs. 60,000/ -, Rs. 50,000/ - and Rs. 30,000/ - respectively. It is relevant here to state that under the 1985 Scheme subscription to the scheme is made compulsory. As stated earlier, the contribution is depended upon the category of the employee but option was given to an employee to contribute more than the amount of compulsory contribution limited to one higher category. It was further made clear under the scheme that the aforesaid option has to be given at the time of opting for the 1985 scheme and will not be subject to any change thereafter. Petitioner claims that in view of the New Scheme she is entitled for payment of Rs. 80,000/ - whereas the petitioner was paid only a sum of Rs. 30,000/ -.

(3.) IN view of the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, it requires determination at my hand as to whether an employee is required to furnish option to cover himself under 1985 scheme. It is relevant here to state that sub -para (d) of Para 3 of the 1985 Scheme provides as follows : -