CWP No. 5990 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.5990 CAT of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 4 .4.2011 Union of India ... Petitioner Versus Manthra Devi and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against judgement dated 11.11.2010 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that husband of the applicant- respondent had expired on 28.12.1977 and the order of removal passed on 10.9.1979 could not be sustained. It is appropriate to mention that husband of the applicant respondent namely Shri Ram Sukh was removed from service on 10.9.1979 on the allegation that he was absent from duty whereas infact he had expired at his native village on 28.12.1977. The Tribunal has examined various pieces of evidence and then recorded the finding that the applicant- respondent was entitled to all retiral benefits of her deceased husband and also family pension. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from paras 12 and 13 of the impugned order which reads thus: “ 12. The officer from the respondent department had gone to the village of the deceased and on enquiry he was told about the CWP No. 5990 of 2011 2 date of death of the ex-employee. However, he formed an opinion that it is not possible to ascertain date of death of the employee. 13. It is not in dispute that there is no record available with the respondents regarding action taken against the applicant under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and infact they are not sure whether any action at all taken under those rules or not. The fact of removal of deceased from service on account of his absence from duty has come to their notice only through Annexure R.1 and it has categorically been recorded by authorities themselves (Page 56) as to how a group 'D' staff of Engineering P.Way cadre was removed from service by DPO is not clear as ADEN is the disciplinary authority for Group 'D' Staff of Engineering. In other words order of removal passed by the DPO is without jurisdiction and nonest in the eyes of law even though the same has not been challenged in these proceedings. Secondly, the order of removal from service was passed by the DPO on 10.9.1979 whereas the death of ex- employee had already taken place on 28.12.1977 itself and this date has to be taken as correct inasmuch as the respondents have failed to prove that the date of death is untrue despite on the spot verifications made by them. Even though there is a mention that the Death Certificate was not counter-signed but that may be an irregularity and not an illegality which would not change the factual position. There is enough evidence on record to indicate that the death had taken place on 28.12.1977. CWP No. 5990 of 2011 3 Only one person on the basis of hear-say evidence has deposed that perhaps ex-employee was alive in 1989. His statement cannot be given any credence in the face of overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence of death of death certificate and evidence of Gram Panchayat to prove the fact of death of employee having taken place on 28.12.1977. The order of his removal was passed in 1979 and as such the same becomes null and void even otherwise in as much as even if it is assumed that some proceeding had been initiated against him for absence from duties, the same had to abate after 28.12.1977. Thus, there remains no impediment in considering the case of the applicant for grant of pension.” After recording the aforesaid finding, the Original Application was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant to consider her case for grant of pension and arrears thereof alongwith other retiral benefits which have accrued to her after the death of her husband as per rules and as revised from time to time. The Tribunal also directed the appellant to grant necessary relief within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order although the prayer of the Original Applicant for grant of interest was declined. However, in case the direction was not complied with then the applicant- respondent would be entitled to interest @ 6 percent per annum. We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that this petition should not have been filed by the appellant because 64 years widow has been granted the retiral benefits of her deceased husband after she has moved from pillar to post. In such like cases CWP No. 5990 of 2011 4 even the National Litigation Policy (2010) 6 SCC J- 17 has discouraged litigation and therefore the policy should have been followed. We see no reason for admission of the writ petition nor any document has been shown to us to entertain any doubt with regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 4.4.2011 Judge okg