2026:JHHC:6476-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.317 of 2021 ------ Satiya Devi wife of Late Birsa Munda, resident of village and P.O. Kuju, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh. ------- Appellant Versus 1. Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. 2. General Manager, Kuju Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, Ramgarh. 3. Project Officer, Kuju Colleiry, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, Ramgarh. 4. Senior Personnel Officer, Kuju Colleiry, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, Ramgarh. 5. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ranchi. ------ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad, Adv. For the Resp.No.1 to 4 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Adv. For the Resp.No.5 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Adv. ------- 13/10.03.2026 Heard Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1490 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant for a direction upon the respondents to settle the claim of the writ petitioner under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme of the Oriental Insurance Company has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, the facts reveal that the husband of the writ petitioner/appellant namely Birsa Munda was employed under the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and he was insured with the respondent no.5 with Group Personal 2 Accident Insurance Scheme of Oriental Insurance Company (respondent no.5) as the employer respondents had entered into an agreement with the insurer in the interest of the employees. A premium of Rs.266/- was deducted from the salary of the husband of the writ petitioner towards Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. It has been stated that the husband of the writ petitioner unfortunately met with an accident and in course of treatment he died on 19.04.2004. A death certificate was issued vide no.A54361 dated 03.06.2004 by the Registrar, Birth and Death, Ranchi Municipal Corporation certifying death of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner being the wife and legal heir of the deceased had filed an application along with the relevant documents before the respondent no. 2 to settle the claim under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme, but the same was rejected by the insurance company due to late submission of such claim. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1490 of 2010 which, however, was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2021 and which is the order impugned to the present appeal. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Sharabhil Ahmad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner / appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that an amount of Rs.266/- was deducted from the salary of the husband of the petitioner towards Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme and depriving the petitioner of such genuine claim is an illegality in itself. The petitioner cannot be denied of such benefits merely because her husband had died during the intervening period when such policy was not in existence primarily on account of the fault on the part of the respondent CCL. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has defended the impugned order dated 07.06.2021 by submitting that on the date of 3 death of the husband of the petitioner admittedly no such insurance policy was in vogue and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly not acceded to. The claim of the petitioner is based on the coverage of the insurance and its duration when such claim is made but absence of any policy during the time of death of the husband of the petitioner automatically makes such claim redundant. 6. We have also heard Mr. G. C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 7. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the submissions advanced by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel, it appears that a memorandum of understanding between the respondent CCL and the insurance company which covered the husband of the petitioner and for which an amount of Rs.266/- was deducted, had a period of coverage from 31.03.2003 to 30.03.2004. The next memorandum of understanding came into existence on 06.05.2004 and the period of its validity was till 05.05.2005. The husband of the petitioner had expired due to an accident during the intervening period on 19.04.2004. Admittedly, the accident insurance policy was not in existence at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner and this has been the predominant submission of the learned counsels appearing for the respondents and as according to them the absence of such policy absolves them from any liability towards payment of the covered amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. 8. The memorandum of understanding dated 28.03.2003 between the employer of the husband of the writ petitioner and the insurance company was a beneficial scheme meant for the welfare and benefit of the executives and non-executive employees of CCL covering various unforeseen circumstances including accidental death and the 4 amount of compensation had also been earmarked for each of such circumstances. The period of coverage started from 31.03.2003 and was valid for a period of 1 year. The annual premium required to be paid was Rs.266/- which had been deducted from the salary of the husband of the writ petitioner. The subsequent memorandum of understanding dated 19.07.2004 was made applicable from 06.05.2004 and its validity was till 05.05.2004. It would, therefore, mean that the commencement of the period of validity has been given a retrospective effect and nothing has been explained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent CCL in the writ application about the rationale behind fixing the date as 05.05.2004. Due to such act a vacuum had been created for the period 31.03.2004 to 04.05.2004 and it was in this small window the husband of the writ petitioner had died giving an opportunity to the respondents to deny such claims on account of non-existence of the insurance policy. 9. In course of hearing of this appeal an order was passed on 16.10.2025 directing the learned counsel for the respondent CCL to state on affidavit as to whether prior to the insurance policy commencing on 31.03.2003 there was a lull in the execution of an agreement. However, the affidavit which has been filed by the respondent CCL does not answer such question and in fact has tried to justify the commencement date of 06.05.2004 as the negotiation with the insurance company could materialize only in May 2004. If at all the respondent CCL was concerned with the welfare of its employees, the negotiation with the insurance company could have commenced much prior to the expiry of the validity date of 30.03.2004 in order to ensure that there is a continuation to the said policy. Once a memorandum of understanding is entered into and the premium is deducted, a legitimate expectation emerges in the mind of the employee of being compensated if any unforeseen circumstance categorized in 5 the memorandum of understanding appears in the horizon. The respondent CCL could not have brushed aside the claim of the writ petitioner simply on the ground that no policy was in existence at the time when the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred due to an accident. 10. The issue could have been considered in a wider spectrum by the respondent CCL in order to do substantial justice to the dependent of its ex-employee. In fact, when the claim of the petitioner was once again put forward before the insurance company vide letter dated 05.02.2010 request had been made for a sympathetic consideration of such claim seemingly oblivious to the fact that no agreement was in existence at the time of the accident of the husband of the writ petitioner. This would fortify the fact that the respondent CCL was also in favour of extending such compensation to the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ application as the aforesaid grounds have not at all been taken note of. 11. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made herein above, set aside the order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1490 of 2010 and direct the respondent CCL to extend the compensation amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. This appeal is allowed. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 10.03.2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 12/03/2026