Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 163 (UTT)

MURTI DEVI v. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

2011-03-10

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2011
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The husband of the petitioner late Sri Ram Sharan Singh was a foreman in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (from hereinafter referred to as B.H.E.L), which is a public sector corporation situate in Haridwar, Uttarakhand. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme (from hereinafter referred to as VRS) was floated for the employees of B. H.E.L. Since the petitioner’s husband came under the said Scheme he offered to take voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Consequently after due formalities were completed, an order was passed by the Competent Authority by which the petitioner’s husband was to voluntary retire from service and was liable to be given an amount equal to his salary for 38 months. Such an order by which the petitioner’s husband was given VRS and the amount was also fixed is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition- a fact which is admitted by B.H.E.L. As per the order, the petitioner was to be relieved from the Corporation on 24.8.2003 and thereafter he was liable to be given the said payment as referred above. 24.8.2003 was admittedly a Sunday (a non-working day in the factory, in which the petitioner’s husband worked). The husband of the petitioner reported for duties on 23.8.2003, but when he had gone for lunch to his house, he passed away at his residence. His widow, who is the present petitioner, consequently informed the Authorities by her representation dated 23.9.2003 for the payment of VRS, being her only wife, natural heir, and nominee. The first representation to this effect is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter she made representations on 22.9.2003 and 30.10.2006, but all in vain. The petitioner hence was constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by B.H.E.L. The only objection raised by the Corporation for not granting the monetary benefit as visualised in the VRS as applicable to the petitioner’s husband was that the husband of the petitioner died on 23.8.2003 a day prior to when he was liable to be relieved, and therefore, no money is liable to be paid to the petitioner. 4. B.H.E.L. is being represented by a Senior Advocate Sri V.K. Kohli, who has reiterated the stand taken by B.H.E.L. in its counter affidavit. 4. B.H.E.L. is being represented by a Senior Advocate Sri V.K. Kohli, who has reiterated the stand taken by B.H.E.L. in its counter affidavit. In spite of repeated reminders of this Court that since 24.8.2003 was a Sunday, in any case the petitioner’s husband was not liable to be relieved from duties on that day and he had reported on duties till 23.8.2003, therefore, no technical objections also remained with the Corporation from releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner. All.the same, learned counsel for the respondent Sri V.K. Kohli has stuck to his assertion that since he was only liable to be relieved on 24.8.2003 and since he died a day earlier to that in spite of the fact that 24.8.2003 was Sunday, no monetary benefit as visualized in the Scheme is liable to be given to the widow (present petitioner), of that employee. 5. There has been a total apathy on the part of B.H.E.L. on this sensitive and human issue. An employee, who has given his best years to the Corporation died on the date he was about to be relieved from the organization. It is admitted fact that the petitioner’s husband applied for VRS and VRS was stood approved by the competent authority and had he died only after few hours or minutes later, VRS amount would have been given to his widow. 6. Apart from the fact that equity lies heavily in favour of the petitioner, this Court is also at a loss to find as to what were the legal impediments for the Corporation to release the amount, which, in any case, was the right of the petitioner. There are no justifiable reasons for the respondents for withholding the amount which was liable to be paid to the petitioner in the year 2006 itself. The reasons assigned by the Corporation for withholding the amount are alien in law as well as in equity. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed. 7. It is also a considered view of this Court that this is also a fit case, where an interest is also liable to be given to the petitioner for the period the amount has been withheld from the petitioner. The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed. 7. It is also a considered view of this Court that this is also a fit case, where an interest is also liable to be given to the petitioner for the period the amount has been withheld from the petitioner. Therefore, it is further ordered that apart from VRS amount, which is equal to 38 months salary of the husband of the petitioner, the Corporation shall pay an interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said amount. An 8% interest has been fixed as the Court has been informed that this is by and large the rate of interest given by nationalized Bank on Fixed Deposits. 8. The writ petition hence stands allowed. Respondent no.1 Executive Director, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited is hereby directed to give aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 9. No order as to costs.