Ram Piari And Another vs Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam on 12 August, 2009

Civil Writ Petition No.20463 of 2008                                  -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                               Civil Writ Petition No.20463 of 2008
                               Decided on : 12-08-2009

Ram Piari and another
                                                   .... Petitioners
                         VERSUS

Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam,
Panchkula & others

                                                 .... Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.

Present:- Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents

to grant interest to the petitioners on the delayed payment of

Rs.2,69,000/- released to the petitioners as arrears of family

pension.

In this case, earlier the petitioners had filed CWP

No.13743 of 2003 for quashing the order dated 31.7.2002,

whereby their claim for family pension was declined. Vide order

dated 8.1.2004, the said petition was allowed by passing the

following order:-

“The petitioners are the parents of the deceased.
Their claim to family pension has been declined
Civil Writ Petition No.20463 of 2008 -2-

on the ground that parents are not covered under
the definition of family as per paragraph 4 (ii) of
the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, which is
applicable to the petitioners case. We find from a
perusal of the judgment in Hukmi Devi Versus
State of Haryana and others, 2003 (2) PLR 771
that this Court has struck down the definition of
family in so far as it excludes the parents from
within its ambit. The learned counsel for the
respondents has however, argued that as the
State of Haryana has not been impleaded as a
party in the present writ petition, the same was
not maintainable. We find no merit in this
submission for the reason that the impugned
action/inaction has been taken by the
respondent-Nigam. We accordingly allow the writ
petition and direct the respondents to pay family
pension to the petitioners as per their entitlement
within a period of three months from today. Dasti
order.”

By the aforesaid order, though the respondents were

directed to pay the arrears of family pension to the petitioners

within a period of three months from the date of order (i.e.

8.1.2004), but actually the arrears of family pension to the tune of

Rs.2,69,000/- were paid to the petitioners on 3.12.2004. Since the

respondents have released the arrears of family pension after a

delay of about eleven months in violation of the Court’s order, I am

of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the

amount of family pension from 8.1.2004 to 2.12.2004 @ 12% per

annum.

Civil Writ Petition No.20463 of 2008 -3-

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the

respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioners on the

delayed payment of Rs.2,69,000/- released to the petitioners as

arrears of family pension @ 12% per annum from 8.1.2004 to

2.12.2004.

12th August, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
Monika JUDGE