IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5307/2008 Decided on:15.3.2010 _____________________________________________ Smt. Vijay Laxmi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner’s mother joined respondent-Department as mid- wife on 2.12.1963. She died on 16.3.1967. Petitioner was minor at the time of death of Smt. Leela Devi. Petitioner submitted representation to the department for the release of terminal/retiral benefits after the expiry of Smt. Leela Devi. She was informed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur to supply blank service book to the office for the purpose of reconstruction of the same in respect 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 of Smt. Leela Devi. Petitioner made a representation on 6.10.1997 for the release of terminal benefits. She also served a legal notice upon the Director Health Services on 13.7.1998. The fact of the matter is that till date the terminal benefits have not been released to petitioner. The sum and substance of the reply of respondent- State is that since the petitioner has not completed codal formalities, terminal benefits could not be released. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings. Petitioner’s mother expired on 16.3.1967. It was the duty cast upon respondents to construct/reconstruct the service book of Smt. Leela Devi. Necessary official information was with the respondents. It is intriguing to note that the terminal benefits have not been released by taking a hyper technical objection that petitioner has failed to supply the blank service book for the purpose of re-construction of the same. It was a small ministerial act, which could be done within a day’s period to mitigate the hardship faced by petitioner. Representation and legal notice served upon respondents on 6.10.1997 and 13.10.1998 have also not been addressed to. Petitioner has a continuous cause of action to get the terminal benefits after the expiry of her mother on 16.3.1967. She was minor at the time of death of her mother. She has been looked after by her grand mother. Stand taken by respondents in the reply that none had filed claim for the purpose of pension and gratuity is contrary to record. Petitioner had entered into correspondence with the respondents for the release 3 of terminal benefits. It is the duty cast upon the employer to ensure that terminal/retiral benefits are paid at the earliest and all necessary help is extended to the needy families. Terminal/retiral benefits are property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Person cannot be deprived of the same without any authority of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to work out the terminal benefits after the expiry of smt. Leela Devi on 16.3.1967 and pay and release the same to petitioner within a period of ten weeks from today. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 15.3.2010 *awasthi*