SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of Employees' Group Insurance.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner Roshan Lal Sharma joined the service of Punjab Government as Signaller (Signal Operator) in Irrigation Department. He was confirmed on the post of Signaller on 8.2.1958. In the year 1977 he was transferred to the office of the Chief Engineer, Department- of Irrigation Works (Punjab) at Chandigarh and he died while in service on 15.5.1992. The State of Punjab introduced a scheme known as Employees' Group Insurance Scheme to give benefit to the heirs of the deceased Government employee whose risk of life was covered by Insurance Scheme on payment of premium. According to the petitioner, her husband was a member of the scheme and, therefore, she is entitled to the amount payable under the said scheme on the death of her husband on 15.5.1992 but the respondents paid her the amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity, and ex-gratia but they did not pay the amounts due under the Group Insurance Scheme payable on the death of her husband Roshan Lai Sharma. She made a representation to the second respondent to release the said amount but she did not get any reply. Therefore, she was compelled to file this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the amount under Employees' Group Insurance Scheme on the death of her husband Roshan Lal Sharma.

(3.) The respondents filed a written statement admitting that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the State of Punjab in Irrigation Department and that he died in May, 1992 but according to them, the scheme which was notified on 16.8.1982 gave an option to the employees to opt out of scheme and the said option was to be exercised in Form-3 by 30th of September, 1982 and the scheme was enforced from the month of October, 1982. According to the respondents, the husband of the petitioner did not opt to be covered by the scheme and, therefore, no premium was deducted from his emoluments and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount under the Employees' Group Insurance Scheme payable on the death of her husband. Thus, according to the respondents as husband of the petitioner was not enrolled as a member of Group Insurance Scheme and as no deduction of premium was made out of his emoluments or pay of her husband, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount payable under the Scheme- It is further stated in the written statement that it was obligatory for the deceased to make necessary deductions from his pay and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the same as a matter of right.