Sukhdei vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 January, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                CWP No. 11538 of 2008

                                Date of Decision: January 12, 2009


Sukhdei                                             ...... Petitioner


      Versus


State of Haryana and others                         ...... Respondents


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:     Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana
             for the respondents.

                   ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


Ajay Tewari, J.

The petitioner’s husband was working as a Junior Engineer with

the respondents since 2.12.1981 on regular basis. On 24.06.1991, having

been transferred, he left his house to join duties at his fresh place of posting

and did not reach there. He has admittedly been missing since then. The

petitioner also filed a civil suit for declaration that her husband had died

which was decreed by the Civil Court on 19.5.2007. By this petition the

petitioner has sought the family pension on account of the death of her

husband while in service. It is being resisted on two grounds. Firstly, it is

stated that due to absence the services of the husband of the petitioner were

terminated by order dated 03.10.2001. In my opinion that order pales into
CWP No. 11538 of 2008 -2-

insignificance after decree of the Civil Court declaring that the petitioner

has been missing since 24.06.1991 and hence shall be declared to have been

dead on 23.6.1998. Any order of termination of service without keeping

this factor in mind would necessarily be of no avail. The second ground

taken is that in the suit for declaration the State of Haryana was not

impleaded. Nothing has been shown to support the proposition that the

State of Haryana was either a necessary or proper party especially when the

Gram Panchayat was impleaded.

In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed and the

respondents are directed to compute the family pension and to release the

arrears thereof within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this order. In case the same is not done then the said

amount would carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the deemed date of

death i.e. 23.6.1998. The respondents are further directed to consider the

claim of the petitioner for gratuity, leave encasement and ex gratia grant

within the said period and pass a speaking order thereon within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in

case the petitioner is found entitled to it, the same be released to her along

with the arrears of pension within the aforesaid period of three months.

Needless to say if these amounts, having been found due are not paid, the

same shall also carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. as stated above.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
January 12, 2009
sunita