Mrs. Pushap Mala & Ors. vs Uoi And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5492 Del

R-141
*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.2973/2000

%                                                    27th November, 2013

MRS. PUSHAP MALA & ORS.                                   ..... Petitioner
                  Through:               Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Advocate

                          Versus


UOI AND ORS.                             ...Respondents

                          Through:       Mr. R.S. Mathur, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. In this writ petition, though there are many reliefs prayed as per the

prayer clauses, effectively two reliefs are claimed. First is that the

deceased husband of the petitioner no. 1 late Sh. Prem Prakash should not

be taken to be on illegal leave from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 and he should

get all monetary benefits as payable to an employee for this period without

his service being treated 'dies non'. The second relief claimed is that

petitioner, should be awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of

harassment of the late husband of the petitioner no. 1 as also petitioners

themselves.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/employer

states that irrespective of what is stated in the pleadings of the respondent

no. 2 till date, the late husband of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Sh. Prem

Prakash will not be treated on illegal leave from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 and

Sh. Prem Prakash will be given monetary benefits as an employee in

service, subject of course to the condition that for this period for which late

Sh. Prem Prakash has not worked in the respondent no. 2 from 14.6.1989

to 5.6.1994 monetary benefits will be given for that period for which the

absence of late Sh. Prem Prakash can be regularized by sanction of all

types of leaves available including medical leaves, casual leaves, earned

leaves and so on. It is also clarified by the respondent no. 2/employer that

for this period from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 actual payments which will be

made to the petitioner will be for those days for which one or the other

leave is available to the petitioner, and for that period for which no leave

could be sanctioned to late Sh. Prem Prakash under any head whatsoever,

that period will be treated as leave without pay.

3. In my opinion, a mere permission of the respondent no. 2 to allow

late Sh. Prem Prakash not to join duties would only mean that the absence

would be justified, however, for those days for which he has not worked

with the respondent no. 2 no salary or other monetary benefits of an

employee can be granted for such period for which late Sh. Prem Prakash

did not actually work with the respondent no. 2 except for the days which

can be adjusted against any type of leave. Of course, though no payment

can be made as per rules for the period for which late Sh. Prem Prakash did

not work, however, all increments and all other monetary benefits which

would have been payable to late Sh. Prem Prakash as an ordinary

employee of respondent no. 2, will be available to the petitioners for his

pay increases.

4. Also, it is clarified by the respondent no. 2 that in case as per the

extant policy as applicable on the date of death of Sh. Prem Prakash,

family pension was available to the legal heirs of the late Sh. Prem

Prakash, i.e the petitioners herein, then petitioners will also be entitled to

the benefit of family pension in accordance with the rules of the respondent

no. 2. In case, there are any requirements to be fulfilled by the petitioners,

for the grant of family pension/pension, then, respondent no. 2, within a

period of two months from today will intimate the necessary requirements

to be complied with by the petitioners as per the rules of the respondent no.

2, and the petitioners will comply with those requirements within a period

of two months thereafter. On compliance by the petitioners of all the

necessary requirements of the extant pension scheme, the respondent no. 2

will pay the appropriate pensionary benefits to the petitioners.

5. Late Sh. Prem Prakash expired on 19.6.1995, therefore, I would take

that all monetary benefits payable to the employee late Sh. Prem Prakash

should ordinarily have been paid within a period of two months of his

death. However, as the petitioners having not been paid the monetary

benefits within a period of two months of the death of Sh. Prem Prakash,

therefore, whatsoever monetary benefits and payments payable to the

petitioners in terms of this order, the same will be paid w.e.f 1.9.1995.

Petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum simple w.e.f.

1.9.1995 till a period of five months from today, and in which period all

the monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits be paid to the

petitioners. In case all the monetary benefits which are payable to the

petitioners are not paid within five months from today in terms of this

order, thereafter, petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 7 ½ % per annum

simple.

6. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

order, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is also observed that

no relief of damages, being a disputed question of fact, is granted in this

writ petition and in case the petitioners so feel, they can file a suit in

accordance with law. However, I may state that I have granted some

compensation to the petitioners, as they have been asked to be given

interest @ 6% per annum in terms of today's order, and which interest can

be adjusted towards any decree of compensation which if and may be

passed in favour of the petitioners if the petitioners choose to file a civil

suit.

NOVEMBER 27, 2013                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Godara