1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Smt. Ugam Bai Vs. The Punjab National Bank & Anr. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.375/1996 judgment dated 2.4.1996 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B.C.W. No.3438/93 Date : 19.7.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANAK LALL MOHTA Mr. M.S. Singhvi for the appellant. None present for the respondents. ______ BY THE COURT:- (PER HON'BLE RAJESH BALIA, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 2.4.1996 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The petitioner's husband Nauratanmal was an employee of Punjab National Bank. He was in the 2 first instance dismissed from service by disciplinary authority vide order dated 11.11.1983 which order was affirmed in appeal. The said order was challenged by way of writ petition No.1832/1984 which was allowed vide order dated 12.6.1986 and order of dismissal was set aside and the respondent Bank was directed to hold the enquiry from the stage of furnishing enquiry report along with the details of finding of enquiry officer and then pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the incumbent. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner's husband was reinstated. By order dated 21.7.1986 the incumbent was again dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority but vide order dated 30th October, 1986 the appellate authority took a lenient view and set aside the dismissal order but imposed a penalty of warning. Along with the imposition of penalty, he further ordered that no emoluments except for the subsistence allowance already paid during the period of 3 suspension of the employee during the enquiry would be payable to him. He further directed that w.e.f. 13.6.1986 the employee shall be entitled to full wages and emolument. The incumbent died while in service on 24.2.1987. The appellant after the death of her husband claimed for the full emoluments during the period of suspension and same was denied. She filed a civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 10.8.1992 by the learned District Judge, Udaipur, after which this writ petition has been filed claiming the full remunerations for the period of suspension of the deceased husband of the appellant, encashment of privilege leave due to the appellant's husband at the time of his death and also compensatory allowance due to the appellant's husband while in service. She claimed interest on the amount that became payable to her. The learned Single Judge was of the view that because the husband of the appellant had not been fully 4 exonerated and punishment of warning has been imposed upon her husband, he was not entitled to wages other than what was awarded by the disciplinary authority for the period during which he remained under suspension or out of job and was also of the view that claim against refusal to allow the full emoluments for the period prior to 13.6.1986 is a belated claim and the petition suffers from latches also. Hence, this appeal. So far as the ground of latches is concerned, we have noticed above that the appellant had in fact filed a civil suit within limitation before District Judge, Udaipur but which has been ultimately dismissed as not maintainable. In these circumstances, it cannot be said, as noticed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition in 1996, that the writ petition was grossly belated. However, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that since the husband of the appellant has not been fully exonerated and the mater was sent back to the disciplinary authority for passing a 5 fresh order and thereafter the proceeding that followed has ultimately resulted only in a conversion of penalty of dismissal to the penalty of warning. Thus, there being no complete exoneration from the misconduct alleged the question of grant of emoluments during the period is not matter of right but dependent on the order passed in that regard. However, we find that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to the relief regarding the encashment of privileged leave due to the husband of the appellant at the time of his death. This claim has not been denied except on the ground that the claim was not made in the suit. Suffice it to say that it was bounden duty of the respondent Bank, which is nationalised bank to pay the dues which were legitimately due to a deceased employee of the Bank. By not discharging their obligation towards a deceased employee and then raising a plea about demand by the widow is contrary to the mental of model employer which every State agency 6 is presumed to be. Moreover if the claim to encashment of privileged leave which was due to the incumbent at the time of his death is not disputed that amount ought to have been paid to the employee's widow along with all retiral dues payable to widow. To that extent, the petition deserves to be allowed and the learned Single Judge has erred in not adverting to this aspect at all. The appellant is also entitled to the compensation payable to an employee, who dies while in service and stagnation allowance which was due to the deceased husband of the appellant. Apparently, the compensation allowance in case of the incumbent died while in service goes to the widow or heirs, who had a claim therefor and such claim ought not to have been refused on any ground whatever when there is no dispute about the fact that the husband of the appellant had died while in service after he was reinstated and full salary has been paid to him w.e.f. 13.11.1986. Accordingly, the appeal and the writ petition are partly allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to 7 compute the amount of leave encashment, stagnation allowance, and compensation payable in the case of employee dying while in service and make the payment of same to the petitioner within three months of the date of receipt of this writ or production of certified copy of order whichever is earlier. The amount shall be payable along with 12 % interest with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition. No costs. [ MANAK LALL MOHTA], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/