Denial Of Provisional Or Superannuation Pension To Widow Of Deceased Judicial Officer Was Blatant Disregard Of Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost
The petition, before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, was preferred by the widow of a former Civil Judge seeking retiral and pensionary benefits.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the State and the Authorities for the delayed release of pensionary benefits and the non-grant of such benefits to the widow of an Ex-Civil Judge. The High Court held that such denial was not only without authority of law but also was blatant disregard of law.
The petition, before the High Court, was preferred by the widow of the deceased (late Gurnam Singh Sewak, Civil Judge Senior Division) claiming the issuance of an order directing the respondents to fix the pension and grant pension, gratuity, leave encashment and all other pensionary benefits up till the date of death of her husband.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh held, “The pensionary benefits and retiral claims are akin to property which cannot be deprived without authority of law as stipulated in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Denial of provisional/superannuation pension to the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner from 09.03.2018 till March-2024 was not only without authority of law but also is blatant disregard of law.”
Advocate Bikramjit Singh Patwalia represented the Petitioner while Sr. Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s husband joined as a Civil Judge (Junior Division), and he was designated as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) on May 11, 1996. He was placed under suspension on August 17, 1996 and after his request for voluntary retirement was declined, he was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry for major misconduct by issuance of a charge sheet dated October 15, 1996. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the husband of the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in 1999.
Thereafter, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of dismissal from service. The Dismissal order was set aside by allowing a Civil Writ Petition whereafter the petitioner became entitled to superannuation pension or at least to provisional pension w.e.f. June 30, 1999, along with admissible retirement benefits. Records revealed that neither pension nor provisional pension was paid. In the absence of any provisional or regular pension, the petitioner, who was suffering from different ailments, expired on October 2, 2021. Affected thereby, the petitioner-widow of the deceased husband approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that even when the Special Leave Petition filed by the High Court was dismissed, putting a stamp of approval to the Division Bench order setting aside his dismissal from service, neither provisional pension nor regular pension was released. The petitioner kept making repeated representations but to no avail. During the pendency of the Petition of filed by the widow, the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee dropped both the charge-sheets and resolved that the period spent during suspension from August 17, 1996 to June 30, 1999 be treated as leave due and the service benefits be released in favour of the legal heirs of deceased judicial officer. As late as March 13, 2024, superannuation pension and family pension were sanctioned and thereafter paid to the petitioner.
“Least that can be said about this case is that neither the judicial officer nor his family after his death were treated with dignity and grace. It is settled law that pensionary benefits as and when become due and admissible, if not released, are liable to be paid with interest and cost”, the Bench said.
Allowing the Petition, the Bench issued a writ of mandamus to the Official respondents to pay interest over the arrears of regular pension and family pension paid late @ 10% per annum calculated from the date the regular pension became due w.e.f. July 1, 1999, and the family pension became due w.e.f. October 3, 2021, till realization. The Bench ordered that the petitioner be also paid arrears arising out of revision in pension as well as arrears of gratuity.
The Bench concluded the matter by further ordering, “Respondents are liable to be fastened with exemplary costs quantified at Rs.25,000 which shall be paid to the petitioner (widow of the deceased judicial officer) within a period of 60 days, failing which the petition be put up as PUD before the appropriate Bench for execution.
Cause Title: Pritam Kaur v. State of Punjab and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:032845-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Abhishek Masih, Gaurav Jagota
Respondents: Sr. Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok, Advocate Dhiraj Chawla
