W.P. (C.) No.503/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.503/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.01.2010 Union of India and Others …. Petitioner Through Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus Smt. Kuntal Kumari …. Respondent Through Nemo CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioners, Union of India and others through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry has challenged the order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent and to release retiral benefits as gratuity and provident fund for the services rendered by her husband between the years 1955 to February, 1971 and if the same had not been paid earlier then to pay the same with interest @ 6% p.a. W.P. (C.) No.503/2010 Page 2 of 4 Brief facts relevant for comprehending the disputes are that the husband of the respondent was appointed as LDC in the year 1955 by direct recruitment and he was given one promotion to the post of UDC in the year 1960. On some allegation and implication in a false case, he was removed from service in the year 1971. Respondent contended that her husband made repeated representation, however to no purpose. The respondent further asserted that a letter dated 1st March, 1973 regarding reinstatement of her husband which was received by her husband on 14th December, 1992. However, her husband died on 1st May, 2007, thereafter, the respondent sought retiral benefits on account of service rendered by her husband which were declined and therefore, the respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. The petitioners had contested the petition before the Tribunal on the ground that the husband of the respondent was removed from service on 6th February, 1971 and the claim of the respondent was also barred by time. It was asserted that the claim of the respondent was considered and rejected. The Tribunal, after considering the respective pleas of the parties, has held that the letter dated 1st March, 1973 propounded by the W.P. (C.) No.503/2010 Page 3 of 4 respondent about reinstatement of her husband could be received by her husband only on 14th December, 1992. This is not disputed that the husband of the respondent had rendered services for about 16 years and if he was reinstated as per letter dated 1st March, 1973, her husband and after the life of her husband, the respondent shall be entitled for arrears of gratuity and provident fund. Whether the letter dated 1st March, 1973 was issued or not has not been categorically denied or adjudicated as the petitioners have not produced the relevant record as appears from the order. No doubt since the husband of the respondent had not completed 20 years of service, he may not be entitled for pension and if he is not entitled for pension even the respondent shall also be not entitled for pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically has referred to the provision regarding family pension or compensatory allowance. However, from the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the respondent is neither claiming family pension nor compensatory allowance. What is being agitated is the letter dated 1st March, 1973 reinstating the husband of the respondent and if that be so she would be entitled for gratuity and provident fund of her husband in accordance with rules and regulations. In the circumstances, direction by the Tribunal to consider the case of the respondent especially whether the letter dated 1st March, W.P. (C.) No.503/2010 Page 4 of 4 1973 withdrawing the removal of the respondent’s husband and reinstating was issued or not and, in case, the order for removal was withdrawn, directing petitioners to pay the gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment, etc, if not already paid cannot be termed to be illegal or suffering from such irregularity which will entitle petitioners for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. No other grounds have been raised by the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is without any merit and it is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. JANUARY 25, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘ss’