MUNNI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste of `harijan'. She is widow of Late Shri Sannu Lal Harijan, who died while on duty as `safai Karamchari' of Circuit House at Jodhpur. He died on 26. 7. 1989. When he died, he was permanent employee of State of Rajasthan as class IV employee on the post of `safai Karamchari'. He was insured by L. I. C. on 25. 9. 1986 under its Salary Saving Scheme. Under the said scheme, the premium was to be paid in instalments shown in Schedule of the Policy, which shall have to be paid by the employer, straightway deducting the amount from the salary of the employee. As per chart at Annex. R/1 produced alongwith the reply affidavit of respondent No. 1, State of Rajasthan, Rs. 70. 90 was regularly deducted every month from the salary of Sannu Lal by way of L. I. C. premium from November, 1986 till July, 1988. However, in August, 1988, the said amount could not be deducted because Sannu Lal remained on extra ordinary leave without pay. And, thereafter, in September a. 10. 1988 though Sannu Lal was on duty, L. I. C. premium was not deducted by his employer. In November, 1988, he once again remained on extra ordinary leave without pay. THEreafter, from December, 1988 till June, 1989 he served, but unfortunately his employer had not deducted L. I. C. premium from his salary as per the scheme. Sannu Lal died untimely on 26. 7. 1989 in an accident, therefore, his widow- present petitioner made an application to the respondent No. 2, L. I. C. for making payment of insured amount on 12. 8. 1989 (Annex. 2 ). However, she was replied on 28. 8. 89 by respondent No. 2 L. I. C. that Policy of her husband had already been lapsed from 7. 7. 88 as no premium was paid by his employer from July, 1988, therefore, the Policy was not in force at the time of death of policy holder, hence no claim is possible under the policy. Hence, this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Sandeep Shah for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs. Basanti Devi and another (1), submitted that the respondent No. 2, L. I. C. committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.