Master Vikki And Ors. vs The Assistant Director (Hort), ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 800 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this writ proceedings directions to release the pension and other terminal benefits payable to the petitioners, legal representatives of a deceased employee of the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( hereinafter called 'MCD') have been claimed.

2. The essential facts are not in dispute. Ved Prakash was appointed as Beldar by the MCD on 6.3.1984. His wife expired on 19.6.1997 when the present petitioners, i.e. children of Ved Prakash were minors. On 18.1.2002, Ved Prakash died while in the employment of the MCD.

3. The petitioners moved these proceedings through Randhir Singh, who acted as their guardian. Randhir Singh is the paternal uncle of the minor petitioners, being the elder brother of the deceased Ved Prakash. He has described himself as guardian- ad- litem and filed the writ petition.

4. Reliance has been placed on the several letters and legal notices to the MCD claiming disbursement of the pensionary benafits to the petitioners, as heirs of late Ved Prakash.

5. The MCD did not dispute the employment of Ved Prakash nor even that two of the petitioners were his legal representatives. However, in their counter affidavit they claimed that Randhir Singh had been asked to produce documentary evidence to show that the petitioners were indeed the heirs of late Ved Prakash. The petitioners had produced copies of school certificates issued in their favor showing that each one of them is a legal representative of Ved Prakash. Randhir Singh had in addition produced copies of his empoyment document, identity card and other documents which establish that the petitioners were living with him.

6. The proceedings in this case were adjourned from time to time. On 19.10.2005, the respondent was directed to deposit the entire retiral dues and arrears of family pension in a nature bearing fixed deposit with a nationalised bank. Randhir Singh was also directed to produced certificates such as birth certificates, school certificates etc.

7. During the course of hearing, on 3.2.2006 the MCD had voiced doubt as to the identity of one of the petitioners namely Master Rohtas. There was dispute whether he was the third son of deceased Ved Prakash. Consequently, the Court had directed an inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kapashera.

8. The SDM in his report dated 19.4.2006 indicated that all the three petitioners are legal representatives of Late Ved Prakash and line with Randhir Singh, elder brother of the deceased who claimed to be their guardian in the proceeding. The Report is as follows:

In compliance to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.02.2006, enquiries have been conducted regarding the dependents left behind by late Sh. Ved Prakash who was resident of 88-B, village Munirka, New Delhi. From the enquiries conducted locally and from the school of the children, it has been revealed that Late Sh. Ved Prakash, S/o Late Sh. Sawal Singh has left behind the following dependents:

1. Sh. Vikki (Son) (DOB 02/08/1988)

2. Sh. Vikas (Son) (DOB 01/01/1990)

3. Sh. Vishal (alias Rohtash) (Son) (DOB 02/03/1993)

It has been revealed in the enquiries that Sh. Vishal is also known as Rohtash, i.e Sh. Vishal and Sh. Rohtash are one and the same person. All the three sons of Late Sh. Ved Prakash are presently living with Sh. Randhir singh, S/o Sawal Singh (Elder brother of Sh. Ved Prakash) at 88-B, Village Munirka, New Delhi. One photograph each of the sons of Late Sh. Ved Prakash is also enclosed with this report. Report is submitted for perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

9. The facts of this case show that even after representations were received on behalf of the petitioners, the MCD did not issue any formal order or take steps to release admitted dues. Instead, in its affidavit it claimed that no documentary proof were received. In a case of this nature where the public employee died and representations were received on behalf of his minor legal representatives who were orphaned, the approach of the MCD is not only unsatisfactory; it is insensitive. Besides, relying upon two notices said to have been and submission made on behalf of that the petitioners did not furnish adequate proof, absolutely no justification was shown as to why amounts were withheld from the petitioners at least when the documents were made available. Instead in the year 2005 even without any allegations in the counter affidavit the MCD voiced fresh doubts as to the parentage of the one of the petitioner namely Rohtas @ Vishal. This conduct is callous and shocking.

10. Where a public employee dies in harness, leaving behind orphaned children at least the State or Executive agencies are expected to behave in a more sensitive manner if there are any doubts. It is for the public employer ( in this case MCD) to make enquiries at the earliest so that monetary relief and benefits are not withheld. If such course of action had been followed the minor children who stand before the court would not have been deprived of their legitimate dues for the last four years.

11. During the course of hearings, it was submitted by counsel for the MCD that the amounts payable for the terminal dues and family pension worked out to Rs. 2,31,864/-.

12. Having considered the material facts on record and submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the MCD has not shown any cogent justification for withholding the benefits due to the petitioners. If reasonable efforts were made by the MCD then it would have concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the leave encashment, gratuity and other benefits (now to be disbursed) latest by June 2002 itself. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the MCD ought to pay interest on the said amounts.

13. In view of the aforesaid going discussions a direction is issued to the respondent MCD to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,31,864/- along with interest for the period from 1.6.2002 to 1.10.2005 (on the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-) at 10% per annum. The respondent is also directed to deposit Rs. 30,000/- towards the costs of these proceedings. The principal, interest, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (out of costs) shall be consolidated in the form of one fixed deposit with a nationalized bank in the joint names of petitioners. The said fixed deposit shall be prepared and produced before the Registrar of this Court within six weeks from today. It is made clear that the total amounts shall be paid, without deductions. The balance of Rs. 15,000/- shall be produced before the Registrar, by the MCD, who shall immediately make that sum available to the Petitioners, through their uncle, Randhir Singh, for their immediate educational and essential needs.

14. A further direction is issued to Registrar of this Court to ensure that the fixed deposits created as per directions of this Court are renewed at periodical intervals not exceeding six month each. The interest accrued from these fixed deposits and also the family pension shall be disbursed to the petitioners through Randhir Singh from time to time as long as they are minors. Thereafter upon each of the petitioners attaining the age of 18 years the Registrar shall issue appropriate directions and ensure that equal amounts are deposited in fixed deposits in their names, and later disbursed.

15. List the matter before Registrar for compliance of the above directions and further supervision and monitoring of the matter on 12.7.2006. The Registrar shall thereafter ensure compliance, by periodically listing the matter at regular intervals. While doing so, the Registrar may also issue directions regarding the manner of utilization of the amounts, and the accounts to be filed, by Randhir Singh.

16. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.