Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 673 (RAJ)

Kamlesh Lata v. State of Rajasthan

2001-04-20

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is widow of late Yashwant Singh Yadav, who was working as Executive Officer and has last served at Municipal Board, Jobner (Jaipur). The husband of the petitioner had died on 29.5.1989 leaving behind the petitioner and minor children. The petitioner had become entitled for payment of the benefit of family pension, provident fund and gratuity etc. 2. It was the case of the petitioner that her husband was in continuous service from 4.11.1967 till his death. He had been serving in various municipalities but had died while serving in Municipal Board, Jobner. The request was made by petitioner to Director Local Bodies to make payment of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other outstanding amount. Repeated reminders were also sent. The respondents instead of completing formalities of collecting the record of petitioner from the places, where the employee had been working, had rather started directing the petitioner to place the record before him for completing the formalities. It goes without saying that the service record of husband of petitioner is supposed to be with respondents. The petitioner had still given the details of working places of her husband vide annexures 3 and 4. But not a single penny was paid even after five years of death of husband of petitioner, with the result the present writ petition was filed in the year 1994 with the prayer to direct the respondents to pay benefits as required under law. 3. The notice was issued to respondents. Initially no reply was filed despite the writ petition was pending for last more than seven years. 4. The arguments were heard on 13.4.2001, when the time was sought by counsel for respondent to obtain proper instruction and ultimately on 18.4.2001 the reply has been filed. In reply, it has been submitted that the respondent has in his possession the record of deceased employee from 20.7.1970 till the date of death, but the previous record is not available, and therefore, it is presumed that the husband of petitioner had started working from 20.7.1970.During the period when the writ petition was pending vide order dated 31.7.1997 the previsional family pension was sanctioned as per Annexure R/1, but is stated that the petitioner had not co-operated therefor, even though family pension was sanctioned as far back in the year 1997 but the arrears of pension for the period from 30.5.1989 to 31.12.2000 Rs. 1,14,341/- have been now paid to petitioner and for the period of 1.1.2001 onwards the family pension is being paid regularly i.e. the provisional family pension. However, the family pension is still under verification and on 9.4.2001 her case has been referred for grant of further family pension and to prepare the pension case. It is further mentioned in the reply that so far other dues are concerned i.e. PF, Gratuity etc., the respondent is still verifying and the matter is under consideration and shall be decided in due course of time. 5. After hearing counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that the respondent had the record of deceased employee at least from 1970 to 1989, it was incumbent upon respondent to have completed the formalities immediately. The respondents have taken more than 11 years to complete the formalities and to make payment of provisional pension on 31.12.2000. The amount of provident fund, gratuity and other retiral benefits including leave encashment have not been paid so far. It is very unfortunate that the widow of deceased employee having minor children had been running from pillar to post for getting the family pension, but from the record it seems that the competent authority has not cared to look into the matter with urgency which was required in the case and the matter stood delayed. The respondent at least could have fixed the pension from the period when the record was available i.e. from 1970 and if earlier record is traced the pension could be refixed. Even now the respondent has fixed the provisional pension only after admitting that as per service record the deceased husband of petitioner was at least in service from 20.7.1970 till his death. 6. I agree with the submission made by the petitioner. There is delay of 11 years, which delay could easily be avoided, had some attention been paid. The writ petition was filed in the year 1994. Notice was issued to respondents. The arguments were heard on 13.4.2001; no written statement was filed till then, nor the counsel for respondent was aware of the position in regard to release of pension and other benefit to petitioner; the case was adjourned with direction to obtain complete instructions. The writ petition was filed in the year 1994. Notice was issued to respondents. The arguments were heard on 13.4.2001; no written statement was filed till then, nor the counsel for respondent was aware of the position in regard to release of pension and other benefit to petitioner; the case was adjourned with direction to obtain complete instructions. The written statement has been filed on 20.4.2001 stating the facts that still the amount of gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment has not been paid and time is being sought to clear the amount of petitioner. 7. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that respondents be directed to complete the formalities and to make payment of dues of provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment, if applicable, and pension if not paid as yet and also any other dues which may be due, be paid to petitioner within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that all amount including the delayed payment shall carry an interest at the rate of 12%; that is the petitioner shall get the interest on the amount of arrears of pension, which has been paid to her on 31.12.2000 from the due date i.e. 1.8.1989 till the date of payment. Similarly, on the amount of gratuity, provident fund and other retiral benefits the interest shall be payable at the rate of 12% from 1.8.1989 till the date of payment. It is directed that the respondents shall now complete all this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed with cost, which is assessed as Rs. 5000/-.Petition allowed. *******