Union Of India And Others vs Smt. Kuntal Kumari
2010 Latest Caselaw 422 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P. (C.) No.503/2010

%                       Date of Decision: 25.01.2010

Union of India and Others                             .... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

                                Versus

Smt. Kuntal Kumari                                       .... Respondent
                        Through Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
      the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners, Union of India and others through Secretary,

Ministry of Commerce and Industry has challenged the order dated 15th

April, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench

directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent and to

release retiral benefits as gratuity and provident fund for the services

rendered by her husband between the years 1955 to February, 1971

and if the same had not been paid earlier then to pay the same with

interest @ 6% p.a.

Brief facts relevant for comprehending the disputes are that the

husband of the respondent was appointed as LDC in the year 1955 by

direct recruitment and he was given one promotion to the post of UDC

in the year 1960. On some allegation and implication in a false case, he

was removed from service in the year 1971. Respondent contended that

her husband made repeated representation, however to no purpose.

The respondent further asserted that a letter dated 1st March,

1973 regarding reinstatement of her husband which was received by

her husband on 14th December, 1992. However, her husband died on

1st May, 2007, thereafter, the respondent sought retiral benefits on

account of service rendered by her husband which were declined and

therefore, the respondent filed an original application before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.

The petitioners had contested the petition before the Tribunal on

the ground that the husband of the respondent was removed from

service on 6th February, 1971 and the claim of the respondent was also

barred by time. It was asserted that the claim of the respondent was

considered and rejected.

The Tribunal, after considering the respective pleas of the parties,

has held that the letter dated 1st March, 1973 propounded by the

respondent about reinstatement of her husband could be received by

her husband only on 14th December, 1992. This is not disputed that

the husband of the respondent had rendered services for about 16

years and if he was reinstated as per letter dated 1st March, 1973, her

husband and after the life of her husband, the respondent shall be

entitled for arrears of gratuity and provident fund. Whether the letter

dated 1st March, 1973 was issued or not has not been categorically

denied or adjudicated as the petitioners have not produced the relevant

record as appears from the order. No doubt since the husband of the

respondent had not completed 20 years of service, he may not be

entitled for pension and if he is not entitled for pension even the

respondent shall also be not entitled for pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically has referred

to the provision regarding family pension or compensatory allowance.

However, from the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the

respondent is neither claiming family pension nor compensatory

allowance. What is being agitated is the letter dated 1st March, 1973

reinstating the husband of the respondent and if that be so she would

be entitled for gratuity and provident fund of her husband in

accordance with rules and regulations.

In the circumstances, direction by the Tribunal to consider the

case of the respondent especially whether the letter dated 1st March,

1973 withdrawing the removal of the respondent's husband and

reinstating was issued or not and, in case, the order for removal was

withdrawn, directing petitioners to pay the gratuity, provident fund and

leave encashment, etc, if not already paid cannot be termed to be illegal

or suffering from such irregularity which will entitle petitioners for

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of Constitution of India. No other grounds have been raised by the

petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is without any merit and it is

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 25, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'ss'