IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.2152 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 7, 2009.
Darshana Devi Singh
...Petitioner(s)
v.
S.K. Negi
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Shri Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed
CWP No.10883 of 2009 for quashing of the orders dated 29.7.2002 and
18.9.2002 (attached as Annexures P-10 and P-12 with the writ petition) vide
which the claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits of her husband and her
family pension was rejected by the respondents. In the writ petition, a
further direction for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus was
also sought to release the arrears of the pension of the deceased husband of
the petitioner with effect from 17.3.1997 to 19.10.2007 with 18% interest
and/or for any other appropriate directions.
During the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge,
the petitioner submitted that she had served a legal notice dated 20.5.2009
upon the respondents (copy of which was attached as Annexure P-14 with
the writ petition), which is still pending and, therefore, the petitioner will be
satisfied if respondent No.5, i.e., the Chief Accounts Officer/Pension, Uttar
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector 15, Panchkula (respondent in
the contempt petition) is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid legal
notice. In view of the prayer of the petitioner, without issuing notice of
motion, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Chief
Accounts Officer/Pension to consider and decide the legal notice in
accordance with law.
The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner
raising the grievance that in spite of the aforesaid direction, the said
respondent has failed to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to
payment of retiral benefits.
Admittedly, the aforesaid Chief Accounts Officer/Pension is
not the competent authority to decide the question of payment of retiral
benefits to the petitioner. Thus, the legal notice which has been ordered to
be decided in accordance with law, cannot be decided by the aforesaid Chief
Accounts Officer/Pension, as in law, he is not competent to decide the
question of payment of pension to the petitioner.
Thus, I find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
December 7, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge