MRS. PUSHAP MALA & ORS. v. UOI AND ORS.

1. In this writ petition, though there are many reliefs prayed as per the prayer clauses, effectively two reliefs are claimed. First is that the deceased husband of the petitioner no. 1 late Sh. Prem Prakash should not be taken to be on illegal leave from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 and he should get all monetary benefits as payable to an employee for this period without his service being treated ‘dies non’. The second relief claimed is that petitioner, should be awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of 2013:DHC:6112 harassment of the late husband of the petitioner no. 1 as also petitioners themselves.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2/employer states that irrespective of what is stated in the pleadings of the respondent no. 2 till date, the late husband of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Sh. Prem Prakash will not be treated on illegal leave from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 and Sh. Prem Prakash will be given monetary benefits as an employee in service, subject of course to the condition that for this period for which late Sh. Prem Prakash has not worked in the respondent no. 2 from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 monetary benefits will be given for that period for which the absence of late Sh. Prem Prakash can be regularized by sanction of all types of leaves available including medical leaves, casual leaves, earned leaves and so on. It is also clarified by the respondent no. 2/employer that for this period from 14.6.1989 to 5.6.1994 actual payments which will be made to the petitioner will be for those days for which one or the other leave is available to the petitioner, and for that period for which no leave could be sanctioned to late Sh. Prem Prakash under any head whatsoever, that period will be treated as leave without pay.

3. In my opinion, a mere permission of the respondent no. 2 to allow late Sh. Prem Prakash not to join duties would only mean that the absence would be justified, however, for those days for which he has not worked with the respondent no. 2 no salary or other monetary benefits of an employee can be granted for such period for which late Sh. Prem Prakash did not actually work with the respondent no. 2 except for the days which can be adjusted against any type of leave. Of course, though no payment can be made as per rules for the period for which late Sh. Prem Prakash did not work, however, all increments and all other monetary benefits which would have been payable to late Sh. Prem Prakash as an ordinary employee of respondent no. 2, will be available to the petitioners for his pay increases.

4. Also, it is clarified by the respondent no. 2 that in case as per the extant policy as applicable on the date of death of Sh. Prem Prakash, family pension was available to the legal heirs of the late Sh. Prem Prakash, i.e the petitioners herein, then petitioners will also be entitled to the benefit of family pension in accordance with the rules of the respondent no. 2. In case, there are any requirements to be fulfilled by the petitioners, for the grant of family pension/pension, then, respondent no. 2, within a period of two months from today will intimate the necessary requirements to be complied with by the petitioners as per the rules of the respondent NO. 2, and the petitioners will comply with those requirements within a period of two months thereafter. On compliance by the petitioners of all the necessary requirements of the extant pension scheme, the respondent no. 2 will pay the appropriate pensionary benefits to the petitioners.

5. Late Sh. Prem Prakash expired on 19.6.1995, therefore, I would take that all monetary benefits payable to the employee late Sh. Prem Prakash should ordinarily have been paid within a period of two months of his death. However, as the petitioners having not been paid the monetary benefits within a period of two months of the death of Sh. Prem Prakash, therefore, whatsoever monetary benefits and payments payable to the petitioners in terms of this order, the same will be paid w.e.f 1.9.1995. Petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum simple w.e.f. 1.9.1995 till a period of five months from today, and in which period all the monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits be paid to the petitioners. In case all the monetary benefits which are payable to the petitioners are not paid within five months from today in terms of this order, thereafter, petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 7 ½ % per annum simple.

6. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is also observed that no relief of damages, being a disputed question of fact, is granted in this writ petition and in case the petitioners so feel, they can file a suit in accordance with law. However, I may state that I have granted some compensation to the petitioners, as they have been asked to be given interest @ 6% per annum in terms of today’s order, and which interest can be adjusted towards any decree of compensation which if and may be passed in favour of the petitioners if the petitioners choose to file a civil suit.

NOVEMBER 27, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J Godara