M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The sole issue involved in the instant petition is `whether an employee who had not subscribed to the Punjab Government Employees Insurance Scheme, 1982 (for brevity, `the Scheme) and not contributed towards the Scheme, would still be entitled to get the benefit of the Scheme in view of deeming provision contained in sub-para (2) of Para 4 of the Schedule appended with the Punjab Civil Services (Group Insurance) Rules, 1982 (for brevity, `the Rules). Also in question are two judgments rendered by learned Single Judges in the cases of Ajai Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1989 (5) SLR 313 and Santosh Sharma (Smt.) v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) S.C.T. 477 : 1996 (4) SLR 134. This reference has, therefore, been made to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge by doubting the aforesaid view.

2. Facts may first be noticed. The petitioner herein is a widow of Dr. Ramesh Kumar. On 3.1.1976, he joined service as a Medical Officer (Dental) in the Health Department, Punjab. The said post has been considered as Class II Service in the State of Punjab. Later on, he was promoted as a Senior Medical Officer (Dental), which was a Class I post. Unfortunately, he expired on 24.6.1993. The petitioner made an application claiming payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- being the premium amount under the Scheme (P-3). On 28.10.1993, the petitioner was informed that since her husband was not a member of the Scheme during his service, therefore, she is not entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. The petitioner challenged this order by way of filling the instant petition.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents the stand taken is that the deceased Officer had not made any contribution under the Scheme since its inception on 2.10.1982 till his death in June 1993. It has also been asserted that the pay bills indicate that no deduction had been made on account of any contribution under the Scheme. The respondents have also placed on record the income tax statements signed by the officer showing that no deduction had ever been made from his salary on account of Group Insurance Scheme. The respondents have further pointed out that on 29.6.1984, the State Government had issued a circular (R-7) to all Heads of the Departments by which a final opportunity was provided to the employees who have not opted for the membership of the Scheme so that they could also avail of its benefits. Another defence taken by the respondents is that the benefit is admissible only to the nominee. Since the deceased had not filed his nomination in Form No. 9, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit thereunder.

4. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 20.5.1997, the learned Single Judge after noticing the aforestated factual position as well as provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Rules and Paras 4, 5, 17, 18 and 19 of the Scheme, culled out the following provisions :

"(1) Under Rule 2(f), it is postulated that only `a member of the Service who had been "enrolled" can be a member of the Punjab Government Group Insurance Scheme.

(2) Under Rule 3, only that member of the Service who subscribed to the Scheme was "eligible to the benefits".

(3) The officer was never informed by his appointing authority about the date of his enrolment and the subscription to be deducted from his salary in Form I as required under para 4.4 of the Scheme.

(4) No deduction was actually made from the salary of the officer from October 1982 till his death in June 1993. He knew it. He had never objected.

(5) Under para 5.2, the subscription of the officer had to be raised after he had been promoted. The petitioners husband was promoted. However, no action as contemplated under para 5.2 was taken and no information in Form No. 2 was given to him.

(6) The officers salary bills, income tax forms from the year 1982-83 to 1990-91 have been produced with the written statement. These are duly signed by him. Various deductions as admissible