Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1884 (RAJ)

Savitri Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-25

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Husband of the petitioner died on 27.4.1980. Petitioner is still praying and other retrial benefits after death of her husband. 2. The concerned Executive Engineer of the respondent - Municipal Council, Jaipur has also given a certificate that husband of the petitioner had worked for 23 years as skilled Mason in the Municipal Council, Jaipur. 3. A very strange, unfortunate and evasive reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents that they do not have any service record of the husband of the petitioner. The officer-in-charge appears to have not bothered even to collect the information from the concerned Executive Engineer, who has given a certificate which has been placed on record as Annexure-2. Even learned counsel for the respondents had the audacity to say that petitioner should have submitted all the details and relevant documents before the concerning authorities to get retinal benefits of her deceased husband. 4. In my opinion, submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is wholly unjustified. It is the duty of the concerning authorities to pay the entire benefits to the wife of the deceased employee. It is not for the poor lady to beg for the due benefits from table to table in the office of the respondent Council. Further, by no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that the record of an employee, who had worked as a regular Mason for more than 23 years, is not available. 5. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to make the entire payment due to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also pay interest @10% per annum on the entire amount from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner till the payment is made. The respondents shall also pay a cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner alongwith arrears as ordered above. The petitioner is a poor lady, now about 62 years of old. The respondent No. 2 is directed to depute a responsible officer to get all the formalities done at the residence of the petitioner.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******