Ajay Pal Singh v. B.S.E.S. Yamuna Powers Ltd.

1. Three reliefs are claimed against the employer in this writ petition by the petitioner who is the son of late Smt. Raj Kumari, who was working as Water Woman, and who died in harness on 18.7.1997. The first relief is for payment of death benefits. The second relief is for payment of pension. 2013:DHC:6454 The third relief is for compassionate appointment.

2. So far as the death benefits are concerned, petitioner is entitled to grant of death gratuity. As per the letter of Delhi Transco Ltd. (original respondent no. 1) dated 3.5.2005, which is filed as Annexure R-1 with its affidavit, petitioner is entitled to death gratuity of Rs. 60,072/-. Present respondent no. 1 is the successor entity of erstwhile employer Delhi Vidyut Board. This amount of death gratuity was not released in favour of the petitioner because of want of no dues certificate from the concerned Billing Unit of the deceased i.e at Chandni Chowk district.

3. In my opinion, since it is the responsibility of the concerned Unit to show any dues, and since there are not shown any dues, there cannot be entitlement to keep on withholding the death gratuity amount. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 60,072/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment be released to petitioner by the present successor entity, namely, M/s. B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd.

4. So far as the payment of pension to the petitioner is concerned, since the petitioner has already attained the age of 25 years, therefore as per pension scheme he ceases to be eligible and hence cannot claim pension. This is so specifically stated in the letter dated 9.12.2002 issued by Delhi Transco Ltd. to the petitioner by making reference to Rule 54 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner with respect to pension is dismissed.

5. So far as the third relief for grant of compassionate appointment is concerned, it was necessary as per the applicable scheme for the petitioner to apply within two years of the death of his mother, but, the petitioner applied after four and half years and, therefore, for this reason the entitlement of the petitioner to compassionate appointment was rejected by letter dated 10.01.2002 of the Delhi Vidyut Board. This letter is filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure P-5. Petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted compassionate appointment more so because the successor entity is a private DISCOM and the law is that compassionate appointment is only in terms of an extant policy. Learned counsel for the BSES hence argues that petitioner cannot get compassionate appointment. Petitioner in my opinion, in view of above facts, is not entitled to compassionate appointment under any extant policy.

6. Writ petition is, therefore, partially allowed to the extent of grant of death gratuity amounts, but is dismissed so far as other two prayers for grant of pension and compassionate appointment are concerned. If M/s. Yamuna Power Ltd. after paying of the death gratuity amounts to the petitioner is entitled to recover it from any other entity/organization, liberty is granted to it to recover the same in accordance with law.

DECEMBER 16, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J godara