ASHFAK AHMAD Vs. STATE AND TWO OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the payment of 31,927.75 ps. which was payable to the petitioner's father on account of his death which became due to him under the State Insurance Scheme for which he had made contribution, upto 24th April, 1982. It appears that the Director, State Insurance and General Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan at Jaipur has issued a letter dated 21.6.1986 to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sikar, Rajasthan, intimating that Shri Mustak Ahmmed, Male Nurse, whose Provident Fund Account No. is 354339, could not be made the payment of Rs. 31,927.75ps, in absence of the relevant information regarding the deceased employee due to which the amount was transferred in the 'unpaid' account.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and therefore, was not aware enough to claim the amount. Even otherwise, the information regarding payment of such amount was sought from the Chief Medical Officer and it was his duty to furnish all the relevant information. The petitioner has therefore, suffered on account of the latches of the department due to which the insured amount along with interest. of Rs. 31937.75ps could not be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased employee.

(3.) In reply, Miss. Deepa Ajwani, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent has stated by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner, in fact, is not entitled for the amount since his father had made contribution only till 1st April, 1978 although he was alive for further 4 years after 1973. Therefore, according to her, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount at all. This arguments raised on behalf of the respondent is fit to be rejected and I have not allowed Miss. Ajwani to travel beyond what was stated in the letter dated 21.6.1986 in which no such plea had been raised by the respondent and the only averments made therein was that the payment of 31,927.75ps could not be paid in absence of the relevant information. If that was the position in 1986, the plea of the respondent, in my view cannot be allowed to be stretched further when the matter is referred in the court of of law in order to make out a plausible case for non-payment to the petitioner. The respondents, in my opinion shall have to confine themselves to the plea which was taken in its own document way back in 1986 which is regarding non-supply of relevant information. The letter dated 21.6.1986, clearly states that the payment could not be made for non-supply of relevant material which was already lying before the Chief Medical and Health Officer. Under the circumstances, it is the department which is wholly responsible for non-payment of the aforesaid amount.