- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R L.Rs. of Jeevan Singh vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3397/2003 DATE OF ORDER : 28th July, 2008 P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.R.N.Upadhaya, for the petitioner. Mr.Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Government Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed by Shri Jeevan Singh in the year 2003, who died on 8/10/2003 during pendency of this writ petition. In writ petition, petitioner has prayed that respondents may be directed to pay all retiral benefits payable to petitioner such as Gratuity, P.F., Insurance and other benefits. It is also prayed that order Annex.8 dated 10/9/2001 by which petitioner was penalized with the penalty of reduction of pension to the extent of 25% for five years may also be quashed. Counsel for petitioner submitted that original petitioner late Jeevan Singh after attaining the age of superannuation - 2 - retired from service on 30/9/1992 and at the time of retirement he was holding the post of Naib Tehsildar. At the time of superannuation Late Jeevan Singh was facing disciplinary proceedings which came to be finalized after nine years vide order dated 10/9/2001, whereby, penalty of reduction of pension to the extent of 25% for a period of five years was imposed. Late Jeevan Singh filed his writ petition in which he has challenged the order of penalty dated 10/9/2001. Unfortunately, original petitioner Late Jeevan Singh died on 8/10/2003. After death of original petitioner his legal representatives were taken on record. The legal representatives made a prayer that they are not pressing prayer for quashing the order of penalty dated 10/9/2001 but respondents may be directed to finalise the retrial benefits including gratuity, PF, Insurance of late Shri Jeevan Singh and arrears may be paid to legal representatives. The Coordinate Bench of this Court also observed that respondents are under obligation to release post retrial benefits of original petitioner to the legal representatives and it was expected from the respondents to decide the pension case of original petitioner within a period of 15 days from the - 3 - date of passing of order which is 7th July, 2006. Unfortunately, said order passed by this Court was not complied with for one or the other reason and at last on 28/5/2008 a specific order was passed by this Court which is as follows: “The pension case of late Jeevan Singh shall be finalized on or before 15/7/2008 after due fixation of pay in the revised pay-scale rules and compliance reply shall be made before this Court on or before 15/7/2008 else the respondents shall remain present before this Court” The above order made by this Court was not complied with, therefore, Director, Pension & Welfare Department was ordered to remained present before this Court so as to explain why the directions issued by this Court are not complied with. On 21st July, 2008, Director, Pension & Welfare Department appeared and submit that pension case of late Shri Jeevan Singh has been finalized vide order Annex.A/2. On that day copy of the order was supplied to learned counsel for petitioner to ascertain the correctness of the fact. Today, this case is listed in the Court and learned counsel for the petitioner submit that late Shri Jeevan Singh - 4 - was entitled for provisional pension right from the date of superannuation because he was facing departmental proceedings but the same was not allowed to him and later on vide order Annex.9 provisional pension was allowed, therefore, upon amount of final pension which is paid vide Annex.9, petitioner is entitled for interest because delay is on the part of respondents in making payment of final pension. Further it is submitted that it is the duty respondent Department to grant benefit of fixation to its employees as per Rules but right from 1977 no benefit was given to petitioner in the Revised Pay Scale Rules by the respondents and now upon perusal of compliance report filed by the respondents it is clear that fixation of pay has been made, meaning thereby, there is complete inaction on the part of respondents with regard to denial of fixation of pay of late Shri Jeevan Singh, therefore, legal representatives of original petitioner are also entitled to arrears on account of fixation of pay so also interest thereon and respondents are under obligation to grant the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that even if any departmental proceeding was pending against the employee at the time of retirement then also as per - 5 - Pension Rules, employee is entitled for provisional pension. It is submitted that after passing of order annex.9 by the Accounts Officer arrears have been paid but respondents are under obligation to pay interest upon the delayed payment. It is also submitted that legal representatives of original petitioner made a prayer before this Court on 6th July, 2006 that they are not challenging the penalty order but at least respondents may be directed to finalise the pension case within 15 days and that prayer was accepted by this Court. On 6/7/2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that original petitioner Jeevan Singh was retired on 30/9/92 but disciplinary enquiry was concluded after nine years vide order dated 10/9/2001 (Annex.8), therefore petitioner became entitled to all retrial benefits after 10/9/2001 but same were not released to him in his life time. The above facts clearly speak that there is total inaction on the part of respondent, in the respondent department no body is performing their duties in proper manner, therefore, direction may be given to the respondents not to harass retired employees and finalise the retiral benefits within reasonable time. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Department argued that legal representatives of original - 6 - petitioner are not cooperating for finalizing the pension case, therefore, delay has caused in complying with the order passed by this Court on 6/7/2006. It is also submitted that provisional pension was already allowed right from the date of superannuation of Late Jeevan Singh, therefore, there is no question of payment of interest and now pension case has been finalized, therefore, writ petition may be dismissed. In this case admittedly, late Shri Jeevan Singh died on 8/10/2003 after filing writ petition. It is also admitted position of the case that he was superannuated w.e.f. 30/9/1992 but his pension case was not finalized due to pendency of departmental proceedings against him, therefore, after conclusion of departmental enquiry vide Annex.8 dated 10/9/2001 respondent department was under obligation to finalise pension case of the petitioner but after waiting two years for grant of retiral benefits there was no option left for the petitioner except to file writ petition in 2003 in w hich the order of penalty is also challenged. During the pendnecy of writ petition original petitioner died, after his death, legal representatives made a prayer before this Court that they are not pressing challenge to the penalty order but directions may be given to finalize retiral benefits within stipulated period. The retiral benefits ought to have been paid on completion of - 7 - departmental inquiry in 2001 but same were not finalized and original petitioner was compelled to file the instant writ petition in 2003, therefore, delay has been caused due to inaction on the part of respondents, the respondents are required to pay interest as per Rules at least from 2001 to the date of actual payment made to the legal representatives of late Shri Jeevan Singh. The allegation with regard to non-cooperation of legal representatives is beyond imagination. On 28/5/2008, a specific order was made by this Court for finalising the pension case till 15/7/2008 but again order was not complied with. For non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court Director, Pension & Welfare Department was directed to remain present before the Court. Thereafter on 21/7/2008 it was informed to the Court that now the pension case of the petitioner has been finalized and it is brought to the notice of the Court that fixation of pay has been made on 23/5/2008. Meaning thereby, it is admitted position of the case that since 1977 fixation of the pay of original petitioner Jeevan Singh was not made by the respondents for which no proper reply or explanation has - 8 - been filed by the respondents, therefore, respondents are under obligation to pay interest upon the said amount also. With regard to claim of gratuity, PF and insurance respondents should have been released after finalization of inqiuiry in the year 2001 but that the said amount also remained due from 2001 to 2008, therefore, L.Rs. of late Shri Jeevan Singh are entitled to interest for delayed payment due to inaction on the part of respondents. In my opinion, upon above facts it is a fit case for awarding compensation because original petitioner was superannuated in 1992. At that time departmental enquiry was pending, the said departmental enquiry pending against him was finalized in the year 2001 but retiral benefits were not finalized by the respondents even after decision of the inquiry, therefore, in compelling circumstances in the year 2003 this writ petition was filed. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died without getting his retiral dues. Thereafter, when his legal representatives were brought on record, they were also not paid the retiral dues of original petitioner and allegation was levelled by the respondents that the legal representatives are not cooperating in finalization of retiral dues which is beyond - 9 - imagination that a person fighting for retiral dues will not cooperate when he is called upon to settle the same. Likewise, legal representatives have also made a prayer that they are not pressing prayer for quashing the order of penalty and prayed that atleast pension case of late Shri Jeevan Singh may be finalized and all dues may be paid. On above prayer, on 7/7/2006, a specific order for finalization of pension case of original petitioner was passed. It is very strange that on one hand Court has passed an order for finalising the pension case of original petitioner because legal representatives made a prayer that they are not pressing prayer to challenge the penalty order still the pension case and fixation of pay since 1977 in the revised Pay Scale Rules of original petitioner has not been finalised within time, therefore, I deem it just and proper to direct respondents to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the legal representatives of original petitioner late Shri Jeevan Singh and to make payment of all retiral dues & arrears of fixation with interest @ 6% from the date of finalization of inquiry dated 10/9/2001 to the date of actual payment to the legal representatives of original petitioner late Shri Jeevan Singh within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. - 10 - pb