Uttarakhand High Court Directs Bank To Pay ₹25 Lakh Insurance To Widow Of Deceased Constable; Says Administrative Lapse Cannot Defeat Claim

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a bank cannot deny the benefit of an accidental death insurance scheme to the widow of a deceased police constable solely on the ground that his name was not included in the list of covered employees, where such omission is attributable to administrative lapse.

The case arose from the death of a constable of the Uttarakhand Police, who died in a road accident during the course of service while his salary account was being maintained with the respondent-bank. Observing that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for lack of coordination between authorities and that the bank cannot take advantage of its own omission, Justice Pankaj Purohit directed payment of ₹25 lakh under the insurance scheme.

The petitioner is the widow of a constable in the Uttarakhand Police who was on deputation with the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) and died in a road accident on 07.08.2021 during the course of service.

It was not in dispute that the deceased was maintaining a salary account with the respondent-bank since 2015, into which his salary was regularly credited, and that a loan had also been sanctioned against the said account.

The respondent-bank had introduced a scheme titled “Complimentary Police Accidental Death Insurance Cover” with effect from 12.04.2021, under which insurance cover was to be extended to police personnel maintaining salary accounts with the bank, with the premium to be borne by the bank itself.

The petitioner contended that her husband squarely fell within the category of employees covered under the scheme, being a police personnel whose salary account was maintained with the respondent-bank.

It was argued that the scheme was automatic in nature and did not require any separate application or nomination, particularly since the premium was to be borne by the bank. The petitioner further contended that the bank was fully aware of the status of the deceased, as his salary was being credited and a loan had been extended on that basis.

The denial of the claim on the ground that the name of the deceased was not included in the list of covered employees was challenged as arbitrary, and it was submitted that such omission could not defeat the entitlement under the scheme.

The respondent-bank contended that the insurance cover was extended only to those employees whose names were included in a list of 676 personnel prepared on the basis of details provided by the police department.

It was submitted that since the name of the deceased was not included in the said list, no premium was deposited in respect of him, and therefore no benefit could be extended. The bank further contended that there was no automatic inclusion of all police personnel and that the responsibility of furnishing correct details lay with the police department.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that the deceased was a police personnel, that his salary account was maintained with the respondent-bank, and that he died during the currency of the scheme.

The only ground for denial of the claim was the non-inclusion of his name in the list of covered employees. The Court held that such omission was an administrative lapse arising out of lack of coordination between the bank and the police department, for which the petitioner could not be made to suffer.

The Court further observed that the bank could not plead lack of knowledge of the status of the deceased, given that his salary had been credited for several years and a loan had been sanctioned against the account. The contention regarding non-payment of premium was also rejected, as the scheme itself provided that the premium was to be borne by the bank.

Holding that the bank could not take advantage of its own omission, the Court found the denial of benefit to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned communication rejecting the claim and directed the respondent-bank to pay ₹25 lakh to the petitioner under the insurance scheme, along with interest at 5% per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Case Name: Damyanti Negi v State of Uttarakhand

Case No. :Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2446 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order