Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 25 January, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010505
CWP-26328-2017 -1-
2024:PHHC:010505
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-26328-2017
Date of decision: 25.01.2024
HARJINDER KAUR
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sobti, Advocate for
Mr. Surender Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction especially
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on the
delayed payment of family pension, leave encashment, gratuity and DCRG to
the petitioner from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner till the
payment of family pension, leave encashment, gratuity and DCRG was made
i.e. with effect from 20.09.1996 to November, 2015, at the rate of 12% per
annum.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a widow
of one Balwinder Singh, who was working as a Peon in the Market Committee,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010505
2024:PHHC:010505
Naraingarh from 19.12.1991. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner
passed away on 20.09.1996. The petitioner being a widow of aforesaid
Balwinder Singh was thereafter granted the benefit of ex-gratia, GIS and GPF
immediately after the death of her husband. However, the petitioner was not
granted family pension, leave encashment and DCRG and the same were
granted to the petitioner in the year 2015. The prayer in the present writ petition
is for grant of interest on the aforesaid delayed payment of family pension,
leave encashment and DCRG since there was no justifiable reason with the
respondents to have withheld the aforesaid benefits.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was also
entitled for grant of family pension, leave encashment and DCRG immediately
thereafter but the respondent-Board did not pay the same to the petitioner till
the year 2015 and in this way, there had been a delay of more than 18 years in
the disbursal of the aforesaid amount. However, so far as the amount of
ex-gratia, GIS and GPF is concerned, the petitioner is not praying for any
interest on the same because the same was paid to the petitioner well within
time. He further submitted that so far as the aforesaid three heads i.e. family
pension, leave encashment and DCRG are concerned, the petitioner had moved
a representation vide Annexure P-1, Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 and it was
thereafter that in the year 2015, the aforesaid amount was paid to the petitioner
with a delay of more than 18 years.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No.2 and 3 while referring to the written statement filed on behalf
of respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that so far as the grant of family pension,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010505
2024:PHHC:010505
leave encashment and DCRG is concerned, the same could not be paid to the
petitioner in view of the fact that she never applied for the same at the time of
death of her husband and it was only for the first time that she had applied on
13.07.2015, whereby she submitted the relevant documents in which she had
stated that she was not aware of the entitlement of the aforesaid benefits and on
receipt of the aforesaid documents, the case of the petitioner was processed and
the arrears of family pension upto 31.10.2015 were paid to the petitioner. He
further submitted that the arrears of the family pension were paid to the
petitioner on 29.02.2016, leave encashment was paid on 22.12.2015 and DCRG
was paid on 12.08.2016. He also submitted that in the absence of any claim or
representation made by the petitioner for the grant of aforesaid benefits, a delay
has occurred since the respondent-Board could not have processed the claim of
the petitioner without her application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The short point involved in the present case is with regard to the
claim of the petitioner, who is a widow for grant of interest on the delayed
payment of family pension, leave encashment and DCRG. The husband of the
petitioner had died on 20.09.1996 and immediately thereafter, benefit of
ex-gratia, GIS and GPF was paid to the petitioner being legally entitled and
being a widow of aforesaid Balwinder Singh. However, the respondent-Board
did not pay the petitioner the benefit of family pension, leave encashment and
DCRG. The only reason that has been given by the respondent-Board in the
written statement and also argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No.2 and 3 is that the petitioner did not ask for the same nor any
representation was filed by her. This Court is of the view that grant of pension
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010505
2024:PHHC:010505
and family pension is a Constitutional Right and is a right to property under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being a statutory right
under the Service Rules. Such a plea taken by the respondent-Board is
unsustainable and not acceptable because it is a duty of the State or any other
instrumentality of the State to grant the benefits which are otherwise available
to the persons, who are entitled for the grant of pension and pensionary benefits.
It is not a case where an employee has retired and he has not submitted his
documents pertaining to grant of pension and pensionary benefits but it is a case
where an employee has died and the widow of the employee was entitled for
grant of family pension, leave encashment and DCRG. For this purpose, it is
not expected that the widow would file any application or representation to the
respondent-Board for the same. It was rather a duty of the respondent-Board to
have immediately granted the aforesaid benefits in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to judgment of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Shakuntala Jain versus State of Haryana, 2001 (1) S.C.T. 24
in this regard.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
view that the present writ petition deserves to succeed.
8. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall be entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of family
pension, leave encashment and DCRG with effect from its accrual till the date
of its disbursement, which comes out to be more than 18 years along with
interest @ 6% per annum. Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to calculate the
aforesaid interest and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three
months from today. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010505
2024:PHHC:010505
within the aforesaid period, then the petitioner shall be entitled to future rate of
interest @ 9% per annum.
9. Apart from the above, since the petitioner is a widow and the
benefits which had flown to her in the nature of family pension, leave
encashment and DCRG were given to her after a lapse of more than 18 years,
the petitioner shall also be entitled for costs, which are assessed at Rs.50,000/-.
The aforesaid costs shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three
months from today.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
25.01.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010505
5 of 5
