Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2231 (DEL)

KAMALDEEP KAUR WAHI v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

2006-11-30

J.M.MALIK

body2006
JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J.-Firstly petitioners father and after his death, the petitioner the only heir to her parents, is claiming the family pension and all the terminal benefits which accrued to her mother Smt. Daljeet Kaur Wahi since 11.6.1982, when she died in harness. The facts germane to the above said case are these. Mother of the petitioner Smt. Daljeet Kaur Wahi joined Sh. Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa G iris Senior Secondary School on 22.2.1965 as a TGT Teacher. Her services were confirmed on 22.2.1966. Thereafter, firstly petitioners father made a number of representations to grant her family pension and terminal benefits. The Principal of the said school handed over the CTD pass books to her husband vide letter dated 3.11.1982. On 15.12.1982, the father of the petitioner was informed that in terms of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, the Family Pension, 1964 is payable to him as widower of the late Smt. Daljeet Kaur Wahi (TGT). He was further informed that Family Pension, 1964 will be payable till his death or re-marriage whichever event occurs earlier. In the event of his death or remarriage, the Family Pension, 1964 would be granted to the child or children, if any through the guardian. Thereafter all the formalities were completed as per letter written by the school dated 9.4.1983. On 1.6.1983, the school informed the father of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 9,805/- is to be deposited in the Government Treasury in the provident fund account of Smt. Daljeet Kaur Wahi as Government share whereas a sum of Rs. 7,406.97 was the existing balance in her PF Account. A fixed deposit of Rs. 9.000/- would be due and payable to her on 11.7.1983, therefore, it was requested that a sum of Rs. 1,593.03 to be deposited with the school to enable the school authorities to deposit the said amount with the Government Treasury which was duly complied with by the father of the petitioner. 2. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the school authorities. On 12.9.2001. the father of the petitioner was informed to furnish the Family Pension papers which were already submitted to the school over a decade back. In the meantime, father of the petitioner died in a road accident on 17.9.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the case. 2. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the school authorities. On 12.9.2001. the father of the petitioner was informed to furnish the Family Pension papers which were already submitted to the school over a decade back. In the meantime, father of the petitioner died in a road accident on 17.9.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the case. It was in the knowledge of the respondent school that the petitioner is the only child of Smt. Daljeet Kaur Wahi. They assured her that the needful would be done, but the school proved long on assurances but short in performances. They asked the petitioner to produce succession certificate after the lapse of more than 24 years, vide letter dated 16.9.2005. 3. All the three respondents have contested this petition. This is an admitted fact that the service record of the petitioner was lost in the year 1996 and subsequently her record was prepared. The file prepared by the school goes to show that on 7.5.2005, Sh. Baldev Singh Rani Bagh, Chairman sent the following letter to the Education Officer Zone 8, Pratap Nagar, Delhi: "1. Original Service Book of incumbent is not traceable and the necessary permission has already been taken for recasting the Service Book. 2. It is clearly written in the letter placed at 25/c that there is no claimant till 5.11.2004. 3. We have written to the husband of Mrs. Daljeet Kaur Wahi many times but he has not submitted the necessary papers. 4. It is certified that the claimants only heir is her daughter since her husband is also expired on 17.9.2004 (Death Certificate placed at 7/c). 5. She has opted for pension and the option is placed in the Service Book. " 4. It is surprising to note that despite the certificate given by the Chairman, the succession certificate was demanded on the objection raised by Accounts Branch, Directorate of Education, District North Delhi vide letter dated 16.9.2005. 5. The learned Counsel for the Directorate of Education-respondent No.1 has drawn my attention towards Rule 12A of Rule 54, which are reproduced as follows: "(i) As soon as a Government servant enters Government service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office. 5. The learned Counsel for the Directorate of Education-respondent No.1 has drawn my attention towards Rule 12A of Rule 54, which are reproduced as follows: "(i) As soon as a Government servant enters Government service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office. (ii) If the Government servant has no family, he shall furnish the details in Form No.3 as soon as he acquires a family." He also drew my attention towards Rule 53, which runs as follows: "That a Government servant shall on his initial confirmation in a service or post make a nomination in Form 1 or 2 as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the retirement gratuity/death gratuity payable under Rule 50." The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that since the nomination paper submitted by the deceased teacher is not on the record, therefore, the petitioner should be directed to obtain succession certificate from the Competent Court. 6. I am of the considered view that the case already stands delayed since last 24 years. The Chairman has already certified that the deceased teacher has left only one legal her. This certificate is of infinite importance. There is no reason why the Chairman of the School should not be taken at his words. He has issued the above said certificate and he is responsible for the same. Secondly, the petitioner has also filed affidavit in support her case. Thirdly, nobody else had laid claim after the lapse of 24 years. Finally during the arguments, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stated that the school has no objection if the entire benefits are given to the petitioner Kamaldeep Kaur Wahi. 7. This is difficult to fathom as to why did the school pursue the matter in a lackadaisical manner. The family of the petitioner is facing this ordeal for the last 24 years. If the request of the respondent No.1 is accepted, the grant of succession certificate would entail a lot of time. Further procrastination in this case should not occur. I, therefore, allow the writ petition. I have been told that the benefits which have already accrued to the petitioner, that amount already stands deposited in the bank and the petitioner will thus get the interest as well. Further procrastination in this case should not occur. I, therefore, allow the writ petition. I have been told that the benefits which have already accrued to the petitioner, that amount already stands deposited in the bank and the petitioner will thus get the interest as well. It is therefore ordered that I the school will pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. 11.6.1982 up-to-date after deducting the amount which the petitioner would get from the bank. Respondent No.3 is also directed to give the pension to the petitioner and its arrears and if she is eligible, she will also get the future pension as well. It is also further directed that petitioner will furnish an indemnity bond in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with the undertaking that she would return/reimburse any of the benefits or pension granted to her, in case these benefits are claimed by any other person or any other legal heir of the deceased teacher. She is directed to file the indemnity bond before the concerned school within a period of 15 days. Subject to filing of this indemnity bond, the respondents are directed to give the benefit within one month thereafter. Writ Petition allowed.