PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay amount of State insurance on the death of her husband Nathu Singh who was a Govt. employee and died due to accident while in service.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's husband Nathu Singh was appointed on 1. 4. 1988 with the respondent. While in service, on account of fire occurred he suffered burn injuries and died on 3. 5. 2000. An inquest report was prepared on 8/12. 6. 2001 which was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khajuwala. The petitioner's husband was serving with the respondent No. 3 Dy. Chief Conservator of Forest (IGNP), Stage-II, Division-I, Bikaner who sent the case to the respondents No. 1 and 2 for the payment of state insurance accruing on the death of the husband of the petitioner along with copy of the postmortem report. The respondent No. 2 vide Annex. 4 dated 26. 12. 2001 informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by the petitioner for payment of State insurance are not complete. The petitioner submitted that she has submitted all requisite documents. Despite submission of the requisite documents and the case being forwarded by the employer respondent No. 3 to the State Insurance respondents No. 1 and 2, the respondents NO. 1 and 2 failed to make payment of the State insurance which fell due to the petitioner on the death of her husband while in service. A notice for demand of justice was also served on the respondents. However, the respondents failed to make payment of the State insurance. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents admitting that the petitioner's husband who was serving with the respondent No. 3 died in accident due to burn injuries on account of fire occurred on 3. 5. 2000. An FIR to that effect was lodged at Police Station, Pungal, Bikaner, admitted the post-mortem report and the inquest report prepared by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Khajuwala, however, denied the payment of State Insurance on the ground that the respondents got the matter investigated by a private investigator Shri R. L. Lotan (Retired R. J. S.) who inquired from the neighbours where the occurrence took place and they stated that the cause of death of the deceased was due to illness, whereas the post-mortem report clearly shows that the petitioner's husband died due to burn injuries in a fire which accidently occurred. It is strange that the State Insurance engaging certain private investigators and conclusion of such investigation is based only on ipse dixit reasons i. e. gathering some information from the neighbours which goes contrary to the admitted facts that the occurrence took place, there was accidental fire and the deceased suffered burn injuries in the accidental fire and that was the cause of death, the matter has been investigated by a responsible officer i. e. Sub Divisional Magistrate and to negate the conclusion arrived at by the S. D. M. and the medical authorities, a report of private investigator has been relied on. In my view, the respondents fell in error in denying the benefit of State Insurance to the petitioner on the death of her husband while in service in an accident. Even otherwise, no such reliance can be placed on the report of the private investigator because the private investigator is interested person in the department which engaged him and the report is not reliable since it runs contrary to the record of the respondent State itself. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of State Insurance to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. . ;