Jasmati Pingua vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court for direction upon the respondents to pay the death cum retiral benefits as husband of the petitioner was

working as Assistant Teacher in Thakkarbapa High School, Dumuria in the district of West Singhbhum and died in harness.

As per factual matrix, deceased husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Thakkarbapa High School on 2.2.1965

and he joined the post on 7.3.1965. The concerned school was given permanent recognition by the State Government on 1st July, 1947 and was taken

over in the year 1980. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 30.04.1976. After his death, widow approached the respondent-authorities for

payment of death cum retiral dues and other benefits but no heed was paid and till date nothing has been received by the petitioner and as such the

widow has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for getting justice.

Mr. Shadabbin Haque, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the school was given permanent recognition on 1st July, 1947

and was taken over in the year 1980, the petitioner is entitled for death cum retiral benefits. Learned Counsel submits that respondent-authorities may

be directed to pay the death cum retiral benefits to the petitioner.

Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submits that the

death of the petitioner took place before the school was taken over by the Government admittedly petitioner was teaching in a recognized school but

not a Government school, only an employee of the State Government is entitled for retiral benefits. The petitioner admittedly was not an employee of a

government school rather he was employee of a recognized school not taken over by the Government and as such petitioner is not entitled for death

cum retiral benefits rather widow is entitled for getting the benefits of triple benefits i.e. pension, provident fund and group insurance and the same has

already been sanctioned by the answering respondents and as such the same shall be paid to the petitioner within stipulated time as per the direction of

this Court.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly at the time of death of husband of the

petitioner, school was not taken over by the Government and it was only a recognized school and he was not the employee of the State Government

and as such he was not entitled for death cum retiral benefits. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears the admissible benefits of Triple

Benefit Scheme has already been sanctioned by the answering respondent. The respondents rose from deep slumber after 40 years. The argument

advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent-State that no claim was raised by the petitioner earlier is totally misconceived and against the

settled provisions of law and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “ S.K.Mastan Bee vrs. General Manager, South Central

Railway & Anr.â€, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 184 wherein it has been clearly held that “ a plea raised by the respondents that a claim for the

pension was raised after more than 20 years, has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held that it is an obligation of the

employer to calculate and pay the retiral dues of the employee. Denial of pension to the petitioner is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of

Indiaâ€​. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in the following words:-

“6. “We notice that the appellant’s husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the

appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family

pension and to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband’s employer viz.

the Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to

make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judge as well

as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to

the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellant’s lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is

not disputed by the Railways. The question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, was the Appellate Bench justified in

restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of the appellant’s husband on which date she had

legally become entitled to the grant of pension? In this case as noticed by us hereinabove, the learned Single Judge had rejected the

contention of delay put forth by the Railways and taking note of the appellant’s right to pension and the denial of the same by the

Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect from the date on which it became due to her. The

Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned Single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for

the grant of family pension was not fatal, in spite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from a date on which the appellant

issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 1-4-1992. We think on the facts of this case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to

have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the

fact that her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate

her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in granting the

relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of

the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1-4-1992.â€​

Though the respondents have already sanctioned the amount but after 40 years of death of her husband. The widow is entitled for the sanctioned

amount along with penal interest of 10% as well as cost of Rs.50,000/- on account of inordinate delay of about 40 years in making payment. The

entire amount shall be paid to the widow within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands allowed.