Union Of India vs Laxmi Devi
2013 Latest Caselaw 1105 Del

$~2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                    Date of Decision : March 06, 2013
+                          W.P.(C) 5215/2012
       UNION OF INDIA                                  ..... Petitioner
                Represented by: Mr.Jagjit Singh and Mr.Amit Dubey,
                Advocates.

                           versus

       LAXMI DEVI                                ..... Respondent
               Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.10653/2012 (Delay) Dismissed as withdrawn because we do not find any delay in preferring the writ petition.

W.P.(C) 5215/2012

1. Late Ram Saran, a railway employee, was declared medically unfit on March 15, 2002. He was sitting in his house on medical leave when he died on June 16, 2002, a fact which was not within the knowledge of the Competent Authority, resulting in the Competent Authority passing an order on July 04, 2002 retiring Ram Saran from service (on being declared medically unfit) and sanctioning such pension as would be payable to him upon being retired on medical grounds. Since Ram Saran had been allotted, on license, a railway quarter, and since the Rules permitted an employee,

retired on medical grounds, to retain the quarter on the normal license fee for four months and for another four months thereafter on double the license fee, an order was passed permitting Ram Saran to continue to occupy the quarter allotted on license for another eight months. But, the gratuity and other retiral dues were not released.

2. When information was received by the department that Ram Saran had died on June 16, 2002, the order retiring him on medical grounds issued on July 04, 2002 was withdrawn, for the obvious reason a dead employee cannot be retired from service.

3. This necessitated the department to process the case treating an employee to have died in harness, and since pensionable service was rendered, to sanction a family pension to the widow and simultaneously pay such other retiral dues such as gratuity etc. to the widow.

4. There was utter confusion because a part of the file continued to be processed as if Ram Saran had been retired on medical grounds and a part treating him as having died. The result was the respondent not receiving the gratuity and other terminal dues, nor a family pension. To rub salt in her wounds, the department raised a demand of about 3.25 lakhs against her on account of unauthorized occupation of the quarter allotted till December 15, 2006. The reason for limiting the demand towards unauthorised occupation till December 15, 2006 was respondent's son being given employment in the Railways on December 16, 2006 and simultaneously the quarter being allotted to respondent's son.

5. The file moved from desk to desk. Not receiving family pension and the terminal dues payable on the death of her husband, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which hardly granted any

relief to the respondent, but issued directions to the petitioner to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders. The Original Application filed by the respondent was disposed of on September 12, 2011 and pertaining to the said order CP No.281/2012 was disposed of on July 20, 2012.

6. We are not noting the directions issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner, to reconsider the matter, for the reason we find that ignoring the ethos of the order passed by the Tribunal and going by the letter of the order i.e. ignoring the spirit thereof, on July 10, 2012 the Railway Authorities have deducted penal rent at market rates for the period commencing June 16, 2004 till allotment of the quarter was regularized in the name of respondent's son on December 15, 2006. This period has been split into two parts. June 16, 2004 to November 30, 2004, for which period penal rent in sum of `7011/- per month has been deducted and for the remainder period from June 17, 2004 till December 15, 2006 the deduction is in sum of `8118/- per month.

7. Other charges towards water consumption, sanitation charges etc. have been deducted. Normal monthly license fee in sum of `118/- per month for the period June 17, 2002 till June 15, 2004 has been deducted. A total sum of `3,26,992/- is shown to have been adjusted. Deducting the same from the gratuity payable, on July 11, 2012 a cheque in sum of `23,034/- stands released to the respondent.

8. Now, a gratuity payable to the respondent on death of her husband has been illegally retained. Being a case of death of a railway employee while in service, the respondent was entitled to retain the license accommodation for two years with liability to pay `118/- per month. As noted above, this benefit has been granted to the respondent inasmuch as till June 15, 2004

recovery is only `2832/- @ `118/- per month. But we would be failing not to highlight that this would mean that the respondent ought to have received gratuity which approximates to `3,50,000/- within a month of her husband dying i.e. by July, 2002. She has been losing interest thereon and there is no reason why the department should not compensate her by paying interest.

9. Respondent's husband died on June 16, 2002. Over 10 years have gone by.

10. To close the matter with justice and equity equally balanced between the petitioner and the respondent, learned counsel for the respondent states that let penal rent at 10 times the license fee be recovered for the period June 16, 2004 till December 15, 2006 and after adjusting the said amount and other dues reflected in the order dated July 10, 2012, balance gratuity amount be released without any interest.

11. It has to be kept in mind that a policy of the Railways entitled the son of the deceased employee, who would obviously be the son of the respondent, to a compassionate appointment and we find the same being delayed. Had the compassionate appointment been made within reasonable time i.e. two years, the quarter would have been regularized in the name of respondent's son and there would have been no problem. To some extent the Railways is to be blamed for taking a delayed decision with respect to compassionate appointment being given to respondent's son. Thus, we find the offer made by learned counsel for the respondent to be fair, just and equitable.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of directing:-

(i) The demand dated July 10, 2012 is quashed insofar as recovery of damages @ `7011/- per month has been effected from June 16, 2004 till

November 30, 2004. Further, the demand reflected therein for the period December 01, 2004 till December 15, 2006 and consequent recovery of damages @ `8118/- per month is also quashed.

(ii) Other demands reflected therein are affirmed.

(iii) Damages @ `1180/- per month as conceded to be paid by the respondent would be computed for the period June 16, 2004 till December 15, 2006, and would be payable by the respondent.

(iv) Adjusting `23,034/- released to the respondent from the gratuity payable to her husband, further amount payable would be computed within 12 weeks from today and the amount released to the respondent.

(v) There being lack of clarity on the subject of : Whether the respondent is today receiving family pension treating her husband having died in service or she is receiving pension payable to the widow of an employee who dies after being retired from service on medical grounds, we simply declare that the respondent would be entitled to family pension treating her husband having died in service, which he did as a matter of fact.

13. No costs.

14. DASTI.

CM Nos.10652/2012 (Stay) Disposed of as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE MARCH 06, 2013//dk//