Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.796 of 2011. Date of Decision: August 26, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandri Devi and another. ……… Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): In the present petition, petitioners have sought interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits of late Tej Ram and also for appointing his son Joginder Singh petitioner in government service on compassionate grounds. 2. With respect to the appointment of petitioner Joginder Singh on compassionate grounds, the matter is stated to be under consideration of the department, but so far as the interest on delayed payment is concerned, the factual scenario is that said Tej Ram was - 2 - initially appointed as Beldar in the respondent- department. He was promoted as Skilled Grafted in the year 1973 and was transferred to the District Horticulture Office Kinnaur at Kalpa, where he joined his duties on 24.3.1973. He proceeded on casual leave w.e.f. 5.12.1973, thereafter he did not join his duty despite repeated communications made to him on the address, which was available in the service record. 3. According to the respondents, once Tej Ram informed the department telegraphically on 23.2.1975 for the extension of his leave on medical grounds, but thereafter no further intimation was received nor he joined his duty. 4. Case of the petitioners is that said Tej Ram was suffering from some disease and also remained under treatment at Kullu hospital and in PGI, Chandigarh, later came to his native place and was totally dependent upon his family members, where he ultimately died - 3 - on 18.2.1990. Copy of his death certificate is placed on record as Annexure P-4. 5. Petitioner Chandri Devi is the widow of Tej Ram and Joginder Singh is his son, who at the time of his death was minor. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be an illiterate and rustic villager, whereas Joginder Singh after attaining the age of majority made a communication Annexure P-4/A in the year 2001 to the District Horticulture Officer, informing about the death of his father in the year 1990 and represented for his compassionate appointment in the respondent-department and sought information what were the documents required by the Department for that purpose. 6. In response, vide letter Annexure P-5 dated 11.10.2001, the District Horticulture Officer sent reply to the petitioner to his representation that the service record of the deceased Tej Ram was not available in their office thus he was required to submit his particulars. In response, vide letter Annexure P- 6, petitioner No.2 informed District Horticulture - 4 - Officer about the place of posting of deceased Tej Ram in the year 1974. Since the service-record was not available with the District Horticulture Officer, as such he sent a letter to the District Agriculture Officer Reckong-Peo (Annexure P-7), if his office had such an employee. 7. Later, the petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act and entire particulars with respect to posting of said Tej Ram were supplied to them vide Annexure P-8. Thereafter petitioner Joginder Singh made a detailed representation (Annexure P-9) to the Director of Horticulture Department, seeking family pension and other service benefits. Finally, the family pension case of deceased Tej Ram was decided and arrears were released to the petitioners vide letter dated 24.3.2010 w.e.f. 19.2.1990 i.e. from the date of death of Tej Ram to June, 2010 to the tune of `3,00,708/- and petitioner Chandri Devi, his widow, was also accorded regular family- pension amounting to `4,445/- from May, 2010, - 5 - but the interest thereon was not paid, as not recommended by the Accountant General of H.P. 8. Surprisingly, when Shri Tej Ram had absented from duty, no action for his willful absence was taken by the respondent- Department for more than three decades. It is a classical example of inaction on the part of the respondent-department that they did not bother even to find if such a person existed on their pay roll. It further got compounded when the intimation with respect to the death was received by the District Horticulture Officer and he was obliged under Rule 77 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to ascertain whether any death-cum-gratuity or family pension or both is/ are payable in respect of deceased government servant, which was not done. Though the service record, which has been produced today does not mention the name of nominees, the person(s) to whom the gratuity was payable, but at least on having come to know that Tej Ram had died and his son asked for - 6 - compassionate appointment, this fact was before the respondent-department and it was incumbent upon them at least to prepare the family pension case and gratuity in respect of the deceased and inform the said petitioner, also to supply the particulars of family members. 9. The above sequel of facts goes to show that the respondent-department was so careless that it misplaced the service record of Tej Ram rather they elicited information from the petitioners about his postings etc. and caused delay in defraying the family pension. Thus, in the cumulative circumstances aforesaid, the respondents cannot avoid the interest on the delayed payment at least from the date when they were informed i.e. from October, 2001 or when they come to know the above position as is revealed from Annexure P-5. 10. In view of the above, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the interest on delay payments. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to pay simple interest @ 9% - 7 - per annum w.e.f. 1.11.2001 to 24.3.2010 on the delayed payment of family-pension of `3,00,708/- within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment and with respect to the compassionate appointment of petitioner No.2, the matter be taken-up by the respondents at the appropriate level, as permissible under the rules, if not already taken. 11. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Surinder Singh) Judge August 26, 2011. (Pds)