Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rama Rani vs Hy. St. Elect. Bd on 22 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -1-
222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-18418-1997
Date of Decision: 22.04.2023
Smt. Rama Rani ..... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Legal Aid Counsel,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate with
Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant all the retiral benefits to the petitioner
along with interest.
2. The present writ petition was admitted on 22.09.1999 and now
it has come up for final hearing.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the husband of the
petitioner, namely, Sh. Jitender Singh was working in the respondent-Board
since 1975 and while he was in service he unfortunately died on 17.06.1993
while serving on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Transformer
Workshop Division HSEB, Faridabad. At the time when he was posted at
the aforesaid office, there were some reported thefts in the Store and various
facts finding enquiries were conducted by the Department but there was no
1 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -2-
charge-sheet nor any disciplinary proceedings against the husband of the
petitioner. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner,
who is his widow made a request to the respondent-Board for number of
times for release of the pension and retiral benefits. The first representation
was made to the Chairman of the Board vide Annexure P-1 on 21.11.1994,
but no action was taken in this regard. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-2,
another representation was made by the petitioner to the Governor, State of
Haryana by stating that she is in trouble and has spent lot of money on fare
and travelling and she does not have any source of income and her children
are minor and therefore, the due amount in respect of her husband may be
released to her. Thereafter, some correspondence had taken place between
the Pension Department and Administrative Department vide Annexure P-3
wherein the process for the same had started. Vide Annexure P-4, dated
07.12.1995, the Secretary of the respondent-Board wrote to the petitioner
that the consolidated 'No Demand Certificate' will only be issued as and
when the pending cases against her late husband are decided. However, there
is nothing on the record to show that as to what cases were pending against
the husband of the petitioner except for some preliminary enquiries which
are indicated in the written statement. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-5, dated
15.04.1996, a consolidated 'No Demand Certificate' in favour of the
husband of the petitioner was issued in which it has been so stated that there
is nothing outstanding against the husband of the petitioner except on two
heads. Firstly, Rs.1,05,615.30/- on account of shortage of Board's material
in PTPS Store and secondly, Rs.300/- on account of running charges of
vehicle No.HY0-8716, totaling of Rs.1,05,915.30/-. In this way, when No
Demand Certificate was issued in respect of the husband of the petitioner the
2 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -3-
only amount which was shown to be outstanding was of the aforesaid
amount of Rs.1,05,915.30/- primarily on account of shortage of the material
of the Board in the PTPS Store. This 'No Demand Certificate' was issued
vide Annexure P-5 on 15.04.1996 after about three years. Thereafter, the
petitioner was granted the 100% provisional pension and was also paid GPF
etc. but some amount was deducted from the Gratuity and Leave
Encashment of the petitioner and some amount was shown to be remaining.
As per the reply filed by the respondent-Board, an amount of Rs.52,222/-
was recovered from the Gratuity and Leave Encashment and remaining
amount was shown to be recoverable i.e. Rs.53,993/-. However, the
remaining pension and pensionary benefits were paid to the petitioner
regarding which no date has come-forth as to on what date, the aforesaid
remaining benefits were paid to the petitioner. However, as per Annexure P-
7, dated 23.10.1996, a letter was written by the Deputy Superintendent
Pension that the DCRG has been adjusted against the pending dues. The
petitioner thereafter served a legal notice to the respondent-Board vide
Annexure P-8 dated 17.03.1997, but no action was taken regarding the same.
The grievance of the petitioner is that she especially being a widow and at
the time of death of her husband was having minor children, has been
deprived of her rights which are not only Statutory Rights but also
Constitutional Rights without any authority of law.
4. Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is a case where there have been a
deprivation of Statutory and Constitutional Rights of the petitioner without
any authority of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is a widow and
her husband died in the year 1993 which is more than 30 years ago and at
3 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -4-
the time of the death of her husband, she had minor children to feed and at
that point of time, she did not even have money to feed her children to make
her both ends meet since she did not have any source of income at that point
of time. While referring to Annexure P-2, learned Counsel submitted that the
petitioner had not only approached the respondent-Board but had also given
a representation to the Governor of the State of Haryana and even orally
requested to the respondent-Board for a number of times that she has no
source of income and the same is so reflected in Annexure P-2 wherein she
specifically stated that she has no source of income and her children are
minor and the amount due against her husband be paid to her, but nobody
listened to her. He further submitted that even when the pension was paid to
her, the same was although 100% pension but it was a provisional pension as
per the reply filed by the respondent-Board but the same was released after
more than three years of the death of her husband and similarly some GPF
etc. was also released after a long delay and the reason for the delay was that
the respondents-Board were not able to arrive at any decision as to how
some amounts were to be recovered from the husband of the petitioner and it
was not the fault of the petitioner that the delay has been occurred but it was
because of the fault of the respondent-Board to have not arrived at any
decision at all and the same has also not been arrived at till date and
therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of interest on the payment
of pension and GPF and other benefits which have been paid to her with an
unexplained delay.
5. Learned Counsel further submitted that so far as the recovery of
an amount of Rs.52,222/- from the Gratuity and Leave Encashment of the
husband of the petitioner is concerned, the same was without any
4 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -5-
justification and without any authority of law. He submitted that even a
perusal of the reply which has been filed by the respondent-Board would
show that in Para No.1 of the Preliminary Objections, a reference has been
made to four thefts which had taken place when the husband of the petitioner
was in service and stated to be Incharge of the Store but while the husband
of the petitioner was in service neither any charge-sheet was issued to him
nor any departmental enquiry was held nor any punishment order or any
such kind of order was passed. He also submitted that even after the death of
the husband of the petitioner no order has been passed by the competent
authority for withholding or for recovering of the retiral benefits from the
Gratuity and Leave Encashment of the petitioner. It was only by way of
letter of the Pensions Department/Accounts Department that a recovery of
the aforesaid amount has been made. He further submitted that vide
Annexure P-7, it has been so stated by the Deputy Superintendent/Pension
for Additional Secretary, HSEB, Panchkula that whole DCRG has been
adjusted against the pending dues but there is no conscious decision taken by
the competent authority as to why and under what circumstances and under
which provision of law the amount was recovered from the Gratuity and
Leave Encashment nor any such order has been placed on record by the
respondent in the present case. He submitted that the aforesaid adjustment
could not be made without passing any reasoned order in this regard. He
further submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondents to refund
the aforesaid amount of Rs.52,222/- along with interest to the petitioner and
the recoverable amount shown by respondents to be Rs.53,993/- cannot be
recovered from the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Hitesh Pandit, learned counsel for the
5 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -6-
respondents-Board with Mr. Divyanshu Shukla, Advocate submitted that
although there is no order on record by which any charge-sheet or any
enquiry or any disciplinary proceedings etc. were initiated against the
husband of the petitioner but since there was loss caused to the Board, the
same was required to be adjusted from the retiral benefits of the husband of
the petitioner. He further submitted that the reason as to why there was a
delay in disbursement of the remaining retiral benefits was that the aforesaid
amount was not adjusted and unless the adjustment was made, 'No Demand
Certificate' could not have been issued and therefore, it caused delay in
starting the pension and also releasing the retiral benefits.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. It is a case of a widow whose husband died in the year 1993
while he was in service and she had minor children at that point of time and
she had been requesting to release the pensionary and retiral benefits
because she had no source of income. However, no action was taken by the
respondents in this regard and ultimately, in the year 1996 as per Annexure
P-7, the entire DCRG was adjusted to the outstanding amount which was
shown to be against the husband of the petitioner and thereafter, 100%
pension in the nature of provisional pension was released to her along with
GPF etc. but the respondents recovered an amount of Rs.52,222/- from the
Gratuity and Leave Encashment of the husband of the petitioner and
remaining amount of Rs.53,993/- was shown to be recoverable from the
husband of the petitioner.
9. The facts and circumstances of the present case would show
that at the time when the husband of the petitioner was in service neither any
charge-sheet nor any disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the
6 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -7-
petitioner nor any order of punishment has been passed against him. A
perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent-Board would show
that a reference has been made to four instances wherein thefts had taken
place where the husband of the petitioner was working. Para No.2 of the
preliminary objections would show that it has been so stated by the
respondent-Board that the Board had suffered losses to the tune of
Rs.2,34,701.50/- and in order to make good the loss, the Board took a
decision that the petitioner's husband is liable for the said loss because of his
negligence and dereliction of his duties. Further in Para No.3 of the
preliminary objections, it has been so stated that in view of the facts and
circumstances, the Board took a decision that the petitioner's husband is
liable to share the liability to the extent of 45% of the total loss which comes
to Rs.1,05,615/-. It is further stated in the aforesaid para that when the case
for recovery of this amount from the petitioner's husband was in process, the
husband of the petitioner expired on 17.06.1993. All the preliminary
objections are reproduced as under:-
"PRELIMINERY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the petitioner has not brought true facts on record
and perhaps concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble
Court. The factual position of the case is like this that the
theft took place in the stores of Thermal Power House Pan-
ipat. Where the deceased Sh.Jitender Singh husband of the
petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer at Panipat
Thermal Power Plant as incharge of the stores. During his
tenure the following thefts took place.
i). On 6.3.1991 impellers -4 in numbers -worth Rs.
35,500/- were stolen from the stores, consequent upon
which an F.I.R. No.152 was Registered and a criminal
7 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -8-
case is pending in the criminal court, which has not
yet been decided.
ii) On 22.1.1991 Actuator Motor, worth Rs. 26,691.50
was stolen from the store and the matter was enquired
into by the Deptt. and the persons who were held re-
sponsible were-
a) Sh. Jarnail Singh, Head Store Keeper
b) Sh. Dalel Singh, Store Keeper, and
c) Sh. Jatinder Singh, Asstt. Engineer
the deceased husband of Petitioner for their
negligence of their duties.
iii) On 28.3.1992 Impellers two in number and other
store material were stolen, and an FIR No. 233 was
got registered on 27.4.92. The respondents enquired
into the matter, as a result of which the petitioner's
husband was held responsible for the dereliction and
negligence of his duties. The petitioner's husband,
being incharge of the stores should have kept strict
vigil and tight security because the goods worth lacs
of rupees were lying in the Stores. A list of articles
stolen on 28.3.1992 is annexed with this writ petition
as Annexure P/1.
iv) That on 20.5.1991 L.T.Motors 3 in Nos. worth
Rs.10,310/- were found stolen which was reported to
the Police on 21.5.1991 and the matter was enquired
into by the Deptt. and the petitioner's husband was
held responsible for negligence of his duties being the
over-all incharge of the Stores.
2. That during the tenure of the Petitioner's husband at
Panipat Thermal Power Plant, four thefts took place after
a brief intervals and after enquiring into the matter in de-
tai, the respondent Board came to the conclusion that
since the Board has suffered a loss to the tune of
Rs.2,34,701/50 in order to make good the loss, the Board
took a decision that the petitioner's husband is liable to
8 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -9-
make good the said loss because of his negligence and
dereliction of his duties.
3. That after taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Board took a decision that
the petitioner's husband is liable to share the liability to
the extent of 45% of the total loss which comes to
Rs.1,05,615/. When the case for recovery of this amount
from the petitioner's husband was in process, the
husband of the petitioner expired on 17.6.1993. After the
death of the petitioner's husband, the retiral benefits
which became due and payable on the death of the
petitioner's husband, but paid, whatever were payable to
the petitioner but subject to the condition that a sum of
is.1,05,615/- was to be recovered from the retiral benefits
of which the amount could not be recovered. Therefore,
the Board paid to the petitioner ex-gratia grant of
Rs.25,000/- G.P. Fund and provisional pension @ 100%.
4. That the Respondent Board was left with no alternative
except to recover a sum of Rs.1,05,615/- from the gratuity
and leave encashment of the petitioner's husband as
shown in Annexure P-5.
5. That after adjusting the amount of Rs.52,222/- from the
gratuity and leave encashment etc. the Respondent Board
is still to recover from the petitioner's husband a sum of
Rs.53,993/-
6. That the averments of the petitioner that she has not
been paid the retiral benefits, which became payable
after the death of her husband, being an employee of the
respondent Board is totally wrong. Rather, the
respondent Board paid to the petitioner all the due
amount of Ex-Gratia Grant, G.P.Fund, the provisional
Pension @100% expeditiously. The adjustment of leave
encashment and Gratuity had to be made because the
petitioner's husband was responsible alongwith other
employees, being the incharge of the Stores of Panipat
9 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -10-
Thermal Power Plant of the loss caused to the
Respondent Board. Therefore, the action of the
respondent Board in adjusting the leave encashment and
Gratuity towards the amount recoverable from the
petitioner's husband is legal and justified.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid contents of the reply filed by the
respondent-Board would show that on the one hand it has been so stated by
the respondent that the Board took a decision that the petitioner's husband is
liable to make good the loss and therefore, a liability of Rs.1,05,615/- was
cast upon him and in the same breath it has been so stated that when the case
of the petitioner's husband for recovering the aforesaid amount was in
process, the husband of the petitioner expired. However, there is nothing on
record to show that as to when the aforesaid decision was taken by the
Board. No order of any Board has been attached with the reply nor has been
supplied by the respondents to this Court. It appears that only bald and
evasive averments have been made in the reply by referring to some decision
of the Board regarding which not even any date has been mentioned. Such
kind of evasive and bald averments in the reply cannot be looked into unless
they are quoted and substantiated by any document and had there been any
document or any final order passed by the Board, the same ought to have
been placed on record by the respondents. Even during the course of
arguments, a specific query was raised to the learned counsel for the
respondents as to whether any final decision by a competent authority was
placed on record or was available or not to which he could not give any
justification and stated that no such order has been placed on record.
Therefore, it has to be presumed that there is no final decision of any Board
to fix any liability towards the husband of the petitioner.
10 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -11-
11. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no
person can be deprived of his Right to Property save by the authority of law.
It is a settled law that pension and pensionary benefits are not a bounty of
the State and it is a part of Right to Property. Therefore, right to receive
pension, pensionary benefits and retiral benefits is not only right which is
conferred by the Statutory Rules but is also a Constitutional Right. A
Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1971
in "Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar", 1971(2) SCC 330, observed
that pension is not a bounty of the State and it is a valuable right. At that
point of time, Right to Property was a Fundamental Right under Article
31(1) of the Constitution of India which was covered under Part III of the
Constitution of India. Thereafter, by virtue of 44th Amendment of the
Constitution of India, Right to Property became a Constitutional Right under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India instead of a Fundamental Right. It
is also well settled law that when the State or instrumentalities of the State is
to give pension and family pension to its employees, then they are not doing
any charity towards anybody and it is rather obligatory upon the State to be
extremely sensitive to the issue of disbursement of the retiral benefits within
time. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"32. The matter again came up before a Full
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R.
Erry v. The State of Punjab, ILR (1967)1 Punj and
Har 278 (FB). The High Court had to consider the
nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The
majority quoted with approval the principles laid down
in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court,
referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be
treated as a bounty payable on the sweet-will and
11 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -12-
pleasure of the Government and the right to
superannuation pension including its amount is a
valuable right vesting in a Government servant. It was
further held by the majority that even though an
opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on
an earlier occasion for showing cause against the
imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his
part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a
cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension
payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already
proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause
in that regard must be given to the officer. This view
regarding the giving of further opportunity was
expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the
relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned
Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not
prepared to agree with the majority that under such
circumstances a further opportunity should be given to
an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension
payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us
in the case on hand, to consider the question whether
before taking action by way of reducing or denying the
pension on the basis of disciplinary action already
taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to
an officer. That question does not arise for
consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the
further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be
adopted by the authorities before reducing or
withholding the pension for the first time after the
retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion
regarding the views expressed by the majority and the
minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court
decision, on this aspect. But we agree with the view of
the majority when it has approved its earlier decision
that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet-will
12 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -13-
and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other
hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a
government servant.
33. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Ranojirao Shinde and another, 1968-3 SCR 489 had to
consider the question whether a "cash grant" is
"property" within the meaning of that expression in
Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This
Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious
that a right to sum of money is property".
12. Thereafter, the aforesaid proposition of law was reiterated by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair",
AIR 1985 Supreme Court 356 and it was again observed that pension and
gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its
employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property, in their
hands. The aforesaid authoritative law was thereafter reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and
another", 1999(2) SCT 347 (SC).
13. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
another authoritative judgment in "State of Jharkhand and others Vs.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another", 2013(12) SCC 210 again
discussed the entire law pertaining to the valuable rights which are
pertaining to the grant of pensionary benefits. Para Nos.8 & 16 of the
aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and
pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these
benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-
blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described
in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1
SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the
13 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -14-
Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words:
"18. The approach of the respondents raises a
vital and none too easy of answer, question as to
why pension is paid. And why was it required to be
liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will
include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is
there any obligation on the employer to provide
for the erstwhile employee even after the contract
of employment has come to an end and the
employee has ceased to render service?
19. 20.What is a pension? What are the goals of
pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it
seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public
purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of
retirement pre and post a certain date? We need
seek answer to these and incidental questions so
as to render just justice between parties to this
petition.
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a
bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the
sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable
as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can
be enforced through Court has been swept under
the carpet by the decision of the Constitution
Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar
and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court
authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and
the payment of it does not depend upon the
discretion of the Government but is governed by
the rules and a Government servant coming within
those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was
further held that the grant of pension does not
depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the
purpose of quantifying the amount having regard
to service and other allied maters that it may be
14 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -15-
necessary for the authority to pass an order to that
effect but the right to receive pension flows to the
officer not because of any such order but by virtue
of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of
Punjab and Another Vs. Iqbal Singh(6)".
It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an
employee and is in the nature of "property". This right
to property cannot be taken away without the due
process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India.
16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to
the legal principle that the right to receive pension is
recognized as a right in "property". Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India reads as under:
"300-A Persons not to be deprived of property save by
authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law."
Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to
the question posed by us in the beginning of this
judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be
deprived of this pension without the authority of law,
which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article
300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the
appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or
even leave encashment without any statutory provision
and under the umbrage of administrative instruction
cannot be countenanced."
14. A Full Bench of this Court in "Dr. Ishar Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another" 1993(3) PLR 499, also discussed the entire issue with
regard to right to withhold the pension and permissibility to withhold the
commutation of pension etc. and also discussed in detail wherein it was
observed that the entire pension has to be paid and it cannot be withheld
without any authority of law. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
15 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -16-
is reproduced as under:-
"81. As a result of the above discussion, I would
conclude as under:-
(i) The Government has no right to withhold or
postpone pension or the payment on account of
commutation of pension. The State is bound to
release 100 per cent pension at the time of
superannuation, may be provisionally.
(ii) The Government can withhold the gratuity or
other retiral benefits except pension or postpone
payment of the same during pendency of an
enquiry.
(iii) Pension cannot be adversely affected before a
finding of guilt is returned.
(iv) The Government can initiate Departmental
enquiry after long lapse before retirement, rather
there is no limitation for initiating the
departmental enquiry from the date of incident
before retirement. The delay and the explanation
for the same may reasonably be taken note of
keeping in view its likelihood to cause prejudice to
the delinquent if the enquiry is challenged in
appropriate proceedings.
(v) The enquiry proceedings cannot be quashed
solely on the ground of long pendency.
(vi) There is no effect of superannuation on the
pendency of the enquiry proceedings.
(vii) The recovery of the Government dues can be
made from gratuity or other retiral benefits only."
15. In "Tukaram Kana Joshi and others through Power of
Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. and others", 2013(1) SCC 353, it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Right to Property is now
16 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -17-
considered to be not only a Constitutional or a Statutory Right but also a
Human right. Para No.9 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"9. The right to property is now considered to be
not only a constitutional or a statutory right but also a
human right. Though, it is not a basic feature of the
Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are
considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as
the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to
shelter and employment etc. Now however, human rights
are gaining an even greater multi faceted dimension. The
right to property is considered very much to be a part of
such new dimension. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat
Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Amarjit Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2010)10 SCC 43; (2010)4 SCC (Civ) 29, State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan,
(2011)7 SCC 875: AIR 2011 SC 1989, State of Haryana
v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011)10 SCC 404: (2012)3 SCC
(Civ) 769: AIR 2012 SC 559 and Delhi Airtech Services
(P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011)9 SCC 354: (2011)4 SCC
(Civ) 673: AIR 2012 SC 573)."
16. In the present case, neither in the written statement filed by the
respondents nor the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents suggest that by what authority of law, an amount was recovered
from the Gratuity and Leave Encashment of the husband of the petitioner.
There is no order on record to show as to by what order the aforesaid
recovery has been ordered to be effected and what was the reason for the
same. Apart from the above, there is no order of any competent authority to
show as to how there has been ascertainment of the aforesaid amount of
Rs.1,05,915.50/-. An evasive and bald averment pertaining to some decision
of the Board without any specific date or any order on record would not
17 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -18-
mean that the petitioner ought to have been deprived of her right in this
regard.
17. Even otherwise also, when the husband of the petitioner was in
service, there was no punishment order against him nor any disciplinary
proceeding nor any charge-sheet was issued against him and therefore, after
his death, the same could not have been recovered from his widow unless
any definite procedure which is prescribed under any rule is followed.
Therefore, it is clear that deprivation has been done without any authority of
law.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed. A direction is hereby issued to the respondent-Board to
refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.52,222/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum (simple). In case any other recovery has been made from the
petitioner then the same shall also be refunded back to the petitioner along
with interest as aforesaid.
19. So far as the payment of interest on the delayed payment of
payments already made is concerned, no legal justification has come-forth as
to why pension and part of retiral benefits have been paid with a delay of
more than three years. Therefore, the petitioner will also be entitled for
interest @ 6% per annum (simple) from two months after the date of the
death of the husband of the petitioner till the actual date of its disbursement
within a period of three months from today.
20. So far as grant of family pension to the petitioner is concerned,
there is no ground to continue the family pension in the nature of provisional
pension. Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularize the family
pension of the petitioner.
18 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053905
2024:PHHC:053905
CWP-18418-1997 -19-
21. The aforesaid amounts be calculated and paid to the petitioner
within a period of three months from today along with interest as stated
above. However, in case, the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner
within a period of 3 months from today, then the petitioner shall be entitled
for future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) instead of 6% per annum
(simple).
22. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case wherein the husband of the petitioner died about 30 years ago and the
petitioner being a widow and having minor children at that point of time and
according to her representation, she had no source of income and as per the
learned counsel for the petitioner she had no money to feed her children at
that point of time when the respondent did not release retiral benefits to her,
she deserves exemplary costs in the nature of compensation. The action of
the respondent-Board was not only illegal but also insensitive in nature.
23. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and proper to
quantify the costs as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) which shall also
be paid to the petitioner by the respondent-Board within the aforesaid period
of three months from today.
22.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
19 of 19
