State Of Kerala vs Najeena
2024 Latest Caselaw 4464 Ker

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Najeena on 6 February, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI
                              &
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
 TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                      WA NO. 349 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 29573/2013 OF HIGH COURT
                          OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE
           DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
    2      THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA (A AND E)
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
    3      THE DIRECTOR
           KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
           BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      NAJEENA
           W/O. LATE YOUSEF SIDDIQUE, RESIDING AT 'MARCH
           8', CHULLIYODE ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O., CALICUT
           - 673 020.
    2      THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
           REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL
           OFFICE, ST. JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING,
           VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:

           R1 P.K.RAMKUMAR
           SR.GP.K.P.HARISH


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2024,
THE COURT ON 06.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.349 of 2020

                                   2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2024

V.G.Arun, J.

The writ appeal is filed by the State of

Kerala and its officials, aggrieved by the

direction in the impugned judgment to pay the

insurance amount due to the writ petitioner,

consequent upon the death of her husband while in

service. The essential facts are as under;

The writ petitioner's husband Yusuff

Siddique, while working as Joint Regional

Transport Officer, Perumbavoor, met with an

accident on 21.01.2008 and succumbed to

injuries on the same day. As the Government of

Kerala had introduced the Group Personal Accident

Insurance Scheme ("the Scheme" for short) as per

G.O.(P) No.221/2007/Fin. dated 29.05.2007 and

fixed the date of commencement of the Scheme as

01.01.2008, the petitioner made a request before

the respondents to pay her Rs.7,00,000/- due

under the Scheme. The request for disbursal of

the insurance amount was rejected and

communicated under Ext.P7 dated 29.08.2013.

Hence, the writ petition was filed seeking the

following reliefs;

"1. To declare that it was the duty of the Government of Kerala to make prompt payment of premium of petitioner's late husband Yusuff Siddique's group personal accident Insurance policy with the 2nd respondent and that if there is failure in payment of premium the government is liable to pay the sum assured to the petitioner and that clause 6(V) of ExtP8 has no application in this case.

2. To direct the respondent to pay Rs.7,00,000 to the petitioner who is the nominee of Yousuff Siddique's insurance policy due to the failure on the part of Government to make prompt payment of premium in the insurance policy of late Yusuff Siddique.

3. In the case of payment of all premium amounts in the insurance policy

of late Yusuff Siddique the 2nd respondent may be directed to pay the sum assured to the petitioner."

2. Before the learned Single Judge the

appellants contended that as a self-drawing

officer it was the duty of the deceased officer

to deduct and pay the premium due towards the

insurance policy from his salary bill for the

month of December, 2007. The petitioner's husband

did not draw his salary from July, 2007 to

January, 2008, since he did not get his pay slip

after his promotion as Joint RTO on 11.07.2007.

Consequently, the premium for the month of

December, 2007 was not deducted and remitted by

him. The petitioner is not entitled for the

insurance amount since the policy, as far as the

petitioner's husband is concerned, would have

become active only on remittance of the first

premium in December, 2007.

3. The learned Single Judge held that the

delay in issuing the pay slip could not be

attributed to the deceased officer and no

explanation was offered by the appellants as to

why the pay slip was not issued after the

promotion of Yusuff Siddique in July, 2007.

Therefore, the respondents were found liable to

pay the insurance amount.

4. Learned Government Pleader assailed the

judgment, contending that in the Government order

by which the date of commencement of the

Scheme was fixed as 01.01.2008, all self-drawing

officers were directed to claim the salary for

the month of December in December itself and to

deduct the premium from the salary bill. It is

contended that the learned Single Judge committed

a factual error in holding that the appellants

had not issued the pay slip of the deceased

employee after his promotion as Joint RTO in

July, 2007. Referring to Annexures A5, A6 and A7

documents produced in the writ appeal, it is

submitted that the pay slip had, in fact, been

issued on 19.12.2007. Not only that, the officer

had prepared his salary bill for the period from

01.07.2007 to 31.07.2007 on 28.12.2007 and salary

for that period was paid on 11.01.2008. Insofar

as the salary slip was issued, nothing stood in

the way of the officer from submitting his salary

bill for December, 2007 after deducting the

premium payable towards the insurance scheme.

The officer having failed to act in the manner

mandated in the Government orders, the nominee

has no legal right to claim the insurance amount.

5. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner

submitted that the documents now relied on were

never produced before the learned Single Judge.

Moreover, even going by those documents, the

petitioner's husband is not at fault for not

deducting the premium from the salary bill of

December, 2007. It is submitted that the salary

of petitioner's husband for the period August

2007 to January, 2008 was paid to the petitioner

much after his death. As such, the appellants

ought to have deducted and remitted the premium

from the salary for the month of December, 2007.

6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance

Company submitted that the company is not liable

to pay the insurance amount, since the premium

was not credited to the Group Personal Accident

Insurance Fund.

7. A perusal of the Scheme produced as

Ext.P8, reveals that the insured had to pay

annual premium of Rs.50, inclusive of service

tax, for the insured sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Going

by Clause 6(i) of the Scheme, the Principal

Secretary to Government in Finance Department

shall apply to the Company for a single policy

covering all Government employees and teachers as

members under the Scheme, entitling each member

to an accident benefit of the sum not exceeding

Rs.7,00,000/-. It is also specified that every

Government employee and teacher shall

compulsorily be a member under the Scheme.

Therefore, with effect from the date of

commencement of the Scheme ie., 01.01.2008, all

Government employees, including the petitioner's

husband, became members of the Scheme.

8. It is true that as per Clause 6(iv) of

the Scheme, self-drawing officers should deduct

the premium from the salary bill for the month of

December and furnish the details of the recovery

of the premium in Form II to the Treasury

Officer, along with the salary bill. As far as

the petitioner's husband is concerned, it is an

undisputed fact that his pay slip on promotion as

Joint RTO was not issued and consequently, he was

not able to claim salary from July, 2007 onwards.

Even going by the documents produced in the

appeal, the salary slip was issued only on

19.12.2007. The petitioner's husband could claim

his salary for the month of July, 2007 only

thereafter. The records also reveal that, salary

was disbursed to the officer only on 11.01.2008.

The petitioner's husband died within ten days of

receipt of his first salary in the promoted post,

before he could submit the salary bills for the

period August, 2007 to December, 2007. In such

circumstances, the contention that, by reason of

the failure of the deceased employee to raise his

salary bill for December, 2007 and deduct the

premium payable towards the insurance scheme, his

legal heirs became disentitled for the insurance

amount, can only be rejected. As contended by the

learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, salary

for the period August to December, 2007 having

been paid after the officer's death, the

appellants should have deducted the premium

amount from the salary of December, 2007 and

remitted the same with the insurance company.

There would have been some substance in the

contentions urged in the appeal, if the insurer

had refused to accept such remittance. The

appellants having failed to do so, the insurance

amount legitimately due to the petitioner cannot

be denied.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ

appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.J.Desai Chief Justice

sd/-

V.G.Arun Judge Scl/

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.569/2007 FIN DATED 29.11.2007 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GE-

21/C/MOR/Y-3/1002/2604 DATED 30.07.2007 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GE-

21/C/MOR/Y-3/1779/5037 DATED 19.11.2007 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ENTITLEMENT REGISTER OF GAZETTED OFFICERS RELATING TO THE PAY SLIP DATED 19.12.2007 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL FOR PAY AND ALLOWANCES /LEAVE SALARY DATED 28.12.2007 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF EXPENDITURE DATED 11.01.2008 OF THE SUB TREASURY, KUNNATHUNAD.

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATED DATED 18.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY, OFFICER KUNNATHUNAD.