Denying Benefit To Similarly Situated Employee Violates Article 14: Uttarakhand High Court Asks Bank To Pay ₹25L To Constable’s Widow

The petition before the High Court was filed by the widow of a Constable seeking the release of an amount of Rs 25 lakh in her favour under the “Complimentary Police Accidental Death Insurance Cover” scheme on account of the death of her husband.

The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit held, “The contention that no premium was deposited in respect of the deceased is also misconceived, as the scheme itself provided that the premium was to be borne by the bank. The respondent bank cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own omission. The action of the respondent-bank, in denying the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner while extending the same to other similarly situated employees, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The inter se stand of the respondents seeking to shift responsibility cannot defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner.”

Advocate M.K. Ray represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Suyash Pant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petition was filed by the widow of Late Narendra Singh Negi, who was serving as a constable in the Uttarakhand Police Department and was on deputation with the State Disaster Response Force in the post of driver. Negi died in a road accident in 2021 during the course of his service. The deceased left behind the petitioner and three daughters. The deceased was maintaining a salary account with the respondent –Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, wherein his salary was regularly credited since 2015. A loan was also sanctioned by the respondent bank to the deceased, the instalments of which were being deducted from the said salary account.

The respondent bank introduced a scheme known as “Complimentary Police Accidental Death Insurance Cover”, which came into effect from April 12, 2021, intended to provide accidental death insurance cover to police personnel whose salaries were being disbursed through accounts maintained with the bank. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made representations to the bank seeking a grant of benefit under the aforesaid scheme. However, the bank informed the petitioner that her husband’s name was not included in the list of employees covered under the scheme. Thereafter, a legal notice dated was served by the petitioner demanding payment of Rs 25 lakh under the insurance cover. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefit, the petitioner has approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Taking note of the fact that the only ground for denial of the claim of the petitioner was that the name of the deceased was not included in the list of employees prepared for coverage under the scheme, the Bench stated, “This Court is of the considered view that such a ground cannot be sustained. The omission to include the name of the deceased is clearly an administrative lapse arising out of lack of coordination between the respondent-bank and the police department. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for such lapse, which is wholly beyond her control.”

The Bench also clarified that the respondent bank cannot plead lack of knowledge of the status of the deceased, since the salary of the deceased was being credited in his account maintained with the bank for several years, and even a loan had been sanctioned against the said account.

Holding that the respondent bank cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own omission, the Bench found that the denial of benefit under the scheme to the petitioner was unjustified and unsustainable in law. Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench directed the respondent Bank to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs 25 lakh towards accidental death insurance cover, along with interest.

Cause Title: Damyanti Negi v. State Of Uttarakhand & others (Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:2264)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates M.K. Ray, Harsh Taneja

Respondent: Standing Counsel Suyash Pant, M.S. Rawat

Click here to read/download Order