LALITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh for the petitioners, Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal for the Magadh University, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for the respondent no.6 and Mr.Amod Kumar, learned junior counsel to Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, representing the Life Insurance Corporation of India are present.

(2.) This writ petition for all practicable purposes was decided under the order dated 23.3.2010. In so far as the liability of the University towards payment of post retiral dues and other admissible dues of the petitioners who are daughters of late Mahendra Manjhi, a Class-Ill employee is concerned, the only issue which remained for adjudication was whether the deceased employee and his heirs would be entitled to the insurance amount under the Group Savings Linked Insurance claim prevalent in the University, of which admittedly late Mahendra Manjhi was a member. The only objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation is that on the date on which Mahendra Manjhi expired i.e. 7.3.2000, the premium for the month of February, 2000 had not been deposited by the University rather was deposited only on 16.3.2000, hence the policy in so far as late Mahendra Manjhi is concerned, was in a lapsed condition and thus in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, late Mahendra Manjhi was not entitled for the insurance amount rather he was simply entitled to the payments of the premiums deposited together with interest accruing thereon and which had since been paid to him vide letter dated 16.8.2001 placed at Annexure-16 to the writ petition. He further, with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, submits that the monthly premium under the Scheme was to the tune of Rs. 5,850/-. The premium due on 28.1.2000 was paid on 17.2.2000 but in so far as the premium of February, 2000 is concerned, an amount of Rs. 5,750/-. was deposited on 16.3.2000 which was a hundred rupee less than the amount paid in the February, 2000. It is contended that the said hundred rupee was the premium payable for the deceased employee and thus in absence of deposit of the said premium, the risk portion of the deceased employee stood lapsed and he was not entitled to the death claim of Rs. One lac.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Corporation in support of his contention relies upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in Chameli Khatoon V/s. The State of Bihar, 2000 2 PLJR 486. He submits that though there was no onus on the part of the employee concerned to deposit the premium which was required to be deposited by the employer but even if the claim of the insured is found justified, the payment would be made by the employer for his lapses and the Corporation cannot be saddled with the liability for the reason that admittedly the policy was in a lapsed condition on the date of death of the deceased employee. He submits that even in the case of Chameli Khatoon the Court even while finding the claim admissible, directed the employer to pay the same and not the Corporation.