Kitabo Devi vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

CM No. 13837 of 2014

CM is allowed.

Written statement of respondents No. 1 to 6, along with Annexures R-1 to R-8, is taken on record.

Main case

The petitioner seeks quashing of the action of the respondents, by which they have withheld arrears of 25% pension payable to her husband, as also have withheld the death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, and further, the family pension which she claims is payable to her with effect from the date of death of her husband, i.e. 14.12.2013. The said retrial benefits and family pension are stated to have been withheld on account of recoveries stated to be due from her late husband, who was working as a Junior Engineer with the respondent-Corporation till 31.05.2010, when he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

The respondents were paying the petitioners'' husband only 75% of the pension, otherwise stated to be payable to him, till his death.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the reply filed on their behalf, Rs. 36,61,739/- was found due to be paid by the petitioners husband to the Corporation, on account of non-submission of some accounts and shortage of material, details of which have been given in the annexures filed with the reply.

The reply further states that General Provident Fund to the tune of Rs. 39,069/- was paid to the petitioners'' husband on 20.09.2010 and leave encashment of Rs. 2,70,020/- was also paid to him on the date that he retired, i.e. 31.05.2010.

The reply further states that the petitioners'' husband had been asked time and again to clear the pending "MAS accounts", for return of damaged transformers and for deposit of outstanding dues, vide various letters issued to him after his retirement. However, since he did "not clear the pending "MAS accounts" and thereby make good the shortage of material totalling a large amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- plus, nothing other man what has already been paid to him, could have been paid, as, in fact, Rs. 25,78,119/- would still be due from him, after adjustment of all his retirement amounts.

The respondents have further stated in their reply that "as per procedure" ''breakage'' in damaged transformers @ 5% of total cost of the transformer and 20% shortage of oil, are waived off after submission of request on a prescribed proforma, duly recommended by the concerned S.D.O., and since the petitioners'' husband had not done the needful, the payments could not be made to him and cannot be made to the petitioner either.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that no disciplinary proceedings, whatsoever, were initiated against the petitioners'' husband at any time during his service career, in respect of the alleged shortages and as such, withholding payments due to him upon his retirement, is a wholly arbitrary and unsustainable action. Upon query, learned counsel for the respondents could not deny that no disciplinary proceedings, were ever initiated against the petitioners'' late husband, in respect of any recoveries sought to be made from him.

In view of the above, though the recoveries stated to be due from the petitioners'' late husband are obviously for a large amount, the action of the respondents in arbitrarily withholding and even now not paying the petitioner, the monies which were otherwise payable to her husband upon his retirement, cannot be sustained in the absence of any opportunity granted to her husband, by proper procedure, by issuing him any kind of charge sheet, to which he could have replied, after which action could have been taken as per law, if found due to be so taken.

Since even the principles of natural justice, admittedly, have not been adhered to by the respondents before withholding/recovering money from the petitioners'' late husband, the stand of the respondents cannot be accepted by this Court, especially after the death of the petitioners'' husband, when obviously there is no-one to even refute any charges as may be made even at this belated stage, had he remained alive.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all retrial benefits as became due to the petitioners'' husband on the date of his retirement, along with 6% interest per annum payable from 01.06.2010 till the date of actual payment thereof. Interest upon 25% cut/withheld pension, shall also be calculated @ 6% per annum from the date that each monthly sum of 25% fell due and was not paid, till the date of its actual payment to the petitioners. The respondents are directed to make the aforesaid payments within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.