Civil Writ Petition No.4368 of 2009 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2009
Veer Bhan
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
How unreasonable the Government functionary can be,
may be noticed from this case. Veer Bhan is an unfortunate
husband of Pushpa Lata, who while working as S.D.C. under
respondent No.2, had died after prolonged illness. She was
paralysed. Prior to her death, she had sought voluntarily retirement
on attaining the age of 54 years in the year 2004. Since she was
suffering from paralysis, she could not visit the office to sign the
Civil Writ Petition No.4368 of 2009 :2 :
papers. The necessary documents for release of retiral benefits also
remained pending due to non-sanction of sick leave for the period
she could not attend the office. On 13.3.2007, a request was made to
respondent No.2 to give details of necessary formalities required to
be completed for grant and release of the retiral benefits. Pushpa
Lata, however, died on 9.5.2007.
An application for commutation of pension was submitted
but was returned on 17.9.2008 by observing that the petitioner had
expired on 9.5.2007 before sending the application. What could the
husband do?. He was in no position to make his wife sign as she was
no more. He is a legal heir entitled to the pensionary claims. The
petitioner served a legal notice which was rejected on 24.11.2008. It
is stated that late Pushpa Lata never applied for commutation of
pension before her death and, thus, the petitioner, who is a husband,
is not entitled to the commuted value of the pension under Rule
11.16 of Punjab CSR Vol.-II as applicable to Haryana.
What an attitude by a welfare State. Instead of realising
their responsibility to pay the retiral benefits to the legal heir-husband
of late Pushpa Lata, the respondents would choose the contest the
writ petition as well. It is conceded that Pushpa Lata had sought
voluntarily retirement from the service on 31.7.2006, which was
allowed. It is also conceded that she had an option to commute for a
lump-sum payment of any portion, not exceeding 40% of eligible
pension. It is then stated that the commutation value could be
released if the application was submitted within one year from the
date of retirement. It is then pointed out that the late wife of the
petitioner sought voluntarily retirement on 31.7.2006 and she expired
Civil Writ Petition No.4368 of 2009 :3 :
on 9.5.2007 before signing and submitting the application for
commutation value of pension. It is also pointed out that the
application was signed and submitted by her husband (the petitioner)
after the death of his wife and, thus, he is not entitled for commuted
value of the pension. Reference is made to Rule 11.16 of Punjab
CSR Vol.-II, which reads as under:-
“If the petitioner dies on or after the day on which
commutation became absolute but before receiving the
commutation value, this value shall be paid to his heirs.”
How the provisions of Rule 11.16 can be invoked to deny
payment of commuted value of the pension is not understood. This
rule rather makes a provision for payment of commuted value of
pension to the heirs. If a pensioner dies on or after the day on which
the commutation became absolute but before receiving the
commutation value, the same shall be paid to his heirs. The wife of
the petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2006. She expired on
9.5.2007. She was entitled to receive the commutation after her
retirement on 31.7.2006 and she died before receiving the commuted
value. This value, thus, is to be paid to her heirs. That seems to be
the operation of this rule. How this is being invoked to deny payment
of commuted value to the petitioner really cannot be appreciated.
The respondents instead of helping a person who has lost his wife
after illness, have created one problem or the other for him. It cannot
be denied that petitioner, being a legal heir, is entitled to receive the
pensionary benefits due to his late wife.
Even after two years, he is still seeking release of
Civil Writ Petition No.4368 of 2009 :4 :
pensionary benefits. He is forced to approach the court as well. After
the death of the wife, the person who is eligible to claim the benefit,
would be so entitled to seek and sign the necessary documents.
Surely, a dead person cannot come alive to sign documents.
Instances would be many where an employee dies suddenly or
accidentally. He would not be expected to leave signed documents
for release of benefits. Surely such documents would be signed by a
heir, who is entitled to receive benefits. The objection on this ground
to deny this payment of commuted value certainly appears
misconceived. The wife of the petitioner was paralyzed. The record
would show that she was unconscious and right thumb impression
had earlier been obtained by Sub Divisional Officer. The
respondents should see reasons and be not rigid. It will be highly
unfair on their part to deny release of such like benefits on such like
pretexts, which would not appeal to logic or sense of justice. A rule
position also is supporting the view that the petitioner can claim
commutation. If an heir is entitled to receive some benefit, he would
certainly be entitled to sign for the grant or release of such benefit.
The objection of the respondents is frivolous and misconceived and,
thus, cannot be sustained.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondents are
directed to treat the application submitted by the petitioner for grant
of commuted value of pension to be valid application and thereafter
release the said benefit and other benefits due to the petitioner within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Since the petitioner has been unnecessarily made to file this petition,
which would have been a cause of mental harassment and agony
Civil Writ Petition No.4368 of 2009 :5 :
for him after the death of his wife, he is held entitled to exemplary
costs, which is assessed as Rs.20,000/-.
September 01, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE