Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 225 (HP)

LALIT KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-08-08

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2003
ORDER Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman: The applicant is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay interest 18% per annum to the applicant on the arrears of family pension and DCRG w.e.f. November 27, 1983, i.e. death of Mother of the applicant till the date of payment with all consequential benefits. 2. His case is that he is Son of Late Smt. Sushila who was working as a JBT in Paonta Sahib Block and died on November 27, 1983 (Annexure-A/1) in harness. At that time the applicant was barely nine years old. His mother was a divorced lady (Annexure-A/2) and leaving separately and the applicant was fully dependant upon her. After her death, the applicant was left at the merely of other relatives. He claims to be entitled for all pensionary benefits being the only issue of his mother. The respondent department did not care to make his payments of the same. 3. It is further averred that the matter with regards to payment of pensionary benefits to the applicant were taken up by his guardians with the respondent department, applicant being minor. However, the family pension and DCRG was not paid to the applicant. The applicant after attaining the age of maturity approached personally various authorities for payment of family pension with arrears and DCRG but nothing was done in this regard. Ultimately, the applicant filed a detailed representation on March 5, 2001 vide Annexure-A/3 to the BPEO, Paonta Sahib for release of family pension and DCRG to the applicant. The matter was further persuade and the Accountant General wrote to the BPRO on August 28, 2001 (Annexure-A/4) to give reason for not paying the pensionary benefits to the applicant earlier. The BPEO vide his reply dated September 4, 2001 (Annexure-A/5) has not given plausible reason for not submitting the case well in time. 4. Thereafter the payments of arrears of family pension amounting to Rs. 1,09,023/- were made to the applicant on November 7, 2001 (Annexure-A/6) and DCRG amounting to Rs. 6,300/- was paid to the applicant on October 15, 2001 (Annexure-A/7) without any interest on the delay payments. The applicant made a representation to the BPEO on November 13, 2001 (Annexure-A/8) for payment of interest on the delayed payment of family pension and DCRG. 1,09,023/- were made to the applicant on November 7, 2001 (Annexure-A/6) and DCRG amounting to Rs. 6,300/- was paid to the applicant on October 15, 2001 (Annexure-A/7) without any interest on the delay payments. The applicant made a representation to the BPEO on November 13, 2001 (Annexure-A/8) for payment of interest on the delayed payment of family pension and DCRG. The said representation of the applicant was further routed to DPEO by BEPO on November 27, 2001 (Annexure-A/9), the DPEO in turn send the said representation of the application further to the Director of Primary Education, on January 7,2002. Nothing has been heard in this regard so for. 5. In reply filed by respondents it has been stated that the applicant has submitted his family pension case with Block Primary Education Officer, Paonta Sahib, the respondent No.4 on March 5, 2001 as evidence from Annexure-A/3). And thereafter, the family pension and other family benefits was sanctioned in his favour on September 18, 2001 i.e. within six months. It is further stated that the representation of the applicant for grant of interest was rejected on the department file on March 28, 2002 by respondent No.2 6. I have heard the learned counsel representing their respective parties and perused the pleadings and record carefully. 7. The mother of the applicant was a divorced lady and applicant was residing with her. She died on November 27, 1983 leaving the applicant behind at the page 9 years. The applicant being a minor was not expected to know the benefits accruing in his favour. It is bounden duty of the department to have completed documentary formalities and released all the benefits to the applicant through his legal guardian. The respondents department lacked in this human approach and did not care for so many years. 8. Admittedly, the pensionary benefits are property of an individual in terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be withheld in this manner for such a long time. Withholding of pensionary benefits have resulted in grave and great financial hardship to the applicant as he had no one to take care of and as such the applicant could not acquire desired level of education as the applicant was facing financial hardship. Withholding of pensionary benefits have resulted in grave and great financial hardship to the applicant as he had no one to take care of and as such the applicant could not acquire desired level of education as the applicant was facing financial hardship. In view of this settled position of law by the Honble Apex Court in cases reported in 2003 (2) SLR 326, 2001 (9) SCC 687 and 2000 (9) SCC 48, I am included in grant the relief to the applicant. CCS Pension Rules, 58. Preparation of pension papers which reads as under: - "58. Preparation of Pension Papers Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7 two years before the date of which a Government servant is due to retire of superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier." 9. As a result of above discussion I partly allowed the Original Application and direct and respondents to pay interest to the applicant @ 12% per annum on all outstanding payment from the date of six months of the death of his mother till the payment is made to him. These directions will be complied with within three months from this order and these observations the Original Application stands finally disposed of with no order as to costs.