Blessy Mathew v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **BLESSY MATHEW, W/O.LATE SABU MATHEW, PATHALIL PUTHOOR HOUSE, KOTTANADU P.O., PERUMPETTY, THIRUVALLA, 689615, (UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, C.M.S. HIGH SCHOOL, KUMPALAMPOIKA).** **BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **3 THE INSURANCE DIRECTOR, THE DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **4 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KIZHAKKELAYATHU BUILDING, BEHIND JAISON TOWER, KADAMMANITTA ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.** - **5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA-689101.** - **6 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENNIKULAM, THIRUVALLA-689544.** - **7 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, C.M.S. SCHOOLS, CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.** - **8 THE HEADMISTRESS, C.M.S.LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VENGALAM, EZHUMATTOOR, THIRUVALLA-689586.** **SRI. P.M.MANOJ -SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021** When this matter was taken up today, Sri.S.Subhash Chand – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on account of the interim order dated 16.07.2020 of this Court, all retiral and other benefits have been paid to his client; but that what remains is the payment of full insurance claim. 2. The learned counsel submitted that it is evident from the facts narrated by his client in this writ petition that non-payment of the insurance premium was not on account of any fault that could have been attributed to his client's husband late Sabu Mathew; but that this was omitted to be done by the Department on account of the fact that he had not been paid salary from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2018. ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-3-** 3. Sri.S.Subhash Chand explains that, while late Sabu Mathew was working at 'C.M.S. Lower Primary School' Perumpetty, he was transferred and posted in “C.M.S. Lower Primary School”, Vengalam, with effect from 01.07.2017; but that this transfer was objected to by the 6[th] respondent for the reason that both the Schools were “uneconomic” ones. 4. The learned counsel submits that this issue was, however, resolved by this Court through the judgment in **State of Kerala and others v. Ciji** **P. Jose and others** [2015 (1) KHC 232]; and that Sri.Sabu Mathew was sanctioned arrears of salary with effect from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2018. He says that, however, on account of a technical problem with “Spark” Software System, the contribution towards insurance was not effected when his salary was paid in lump sum; and therefore, that said factum could not have been used against his client ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-4-** to deny full insurance claim to his client. Sri.S.Subhash Chand relied on Rule 6 Chapter XXVIIA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), in substantiation of his client's plea that omission to pay the insurance premium for the reasons above could not have been used to the detriment of the family of Late Sabu Mathew, in the manner as has now been done. 5.Sri.S.Subhash Chand, thereafter, submitted that his client, has, consequently, preferred Ext.P5 Revision Petition before the Government and prayed that same be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P5 to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-5-** declarations as regards the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority of the Government to take an appropriate decision thereon as per law. 7. The afore record of the submissions of the rival parties make it clear that, as of now, the only amount sought for by the petitioner is the insurance claim. All other amounts have already been paid under the order of this Court on 16.10.2020. 8. As regards the insurance claim, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the omission to remit contribution by the Authorities cannot be a reason, to deny the said claim to the family of late Sabu Mathew, particularly when he had not been paid salary for the reasons above stated, between 01.07.2017 and 30.10.2018. 9. I find some force in the submissions of ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-6-** the learned counsel in this regard because, if, as stated by him, late Sabu Mathew had not been paid salary during the afore period, but subsequently paid in lump sum as per the judgment of this Court, then, _prima facie_ , non-payment of the insurance premium during the said period cannot be solely attributed against late Sabu Mathew. This is because, the insurance contribution normally could have been made only on monthly basis as per the online system followed by the respondents; and, therefore, when salary was initially denied and thereafter paid to him in lump sum for the aforementioned period, some method ought to have been reckoned by the Authorities in remitting the contribution towards insurance also. I am, therefore, of the view that Government must look into the grievance projected by the petitioner in Ext.P5 with respect to this issue; and that they must take a decision thereon, ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-7-** particularly adverting to the provisions of Rule 6, Chapter XXVIIA of the KER. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the Government to take up Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner and to dispose it of, on the surviving issue impelled by the petitioner with respect to the claim for insurance, consequent to her husband's death. This shall be done after affording her, as also the Manager of the School, an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, when the afore exercise is completed, Government shall advert specifically to Rule 6, Chapter XXVIIA of the KER and properly assess the contention of the petitioner that non- ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** **-8-** payment of the insurance premium was not on account of any fault that can be attributed to late Sabu Mathew. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **-9-** ## **WP(C).No.13592 OF 2020(Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 27.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (COMMON) THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE REGISTRATION REPORT DATED 25.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.8 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY.** **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.DIO/PTA/GIS/DC/16/2019-20 DATED 27.12.2019 BY WHICH RESPONDENT NO.4 HAD SOUGHT FOR A CLARIFICATION FROM RESPONDENT NO.3.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE