Union Of India And ANR v. Manjit Kaur And ANR
!
"#$# % & '('$
)*
%# % !
%+#
%+
% , -
..
# # % -$ / -$'$ .
%3#
'-
%+
% , -
..
$5 %+ % $ 2& 67 2.
0 0 2
0
67 2.
0 / 40 0
0 2
0
.
7
!" !# $!$% &' (#)
+
.
.
+
/
!0 $ $!!1 &' (1)
$" !0 $!
&' (2) $ .
*
+
+
.
# 4
.
+
+
!" !# $!$% &' (#) "
/
*
% ,
+
.
6
7
+ 5
*
*
+ 5
*
+ '
5
*
/
9
.
3
+ 9
!
" #$
*
!
.
*
+
*
7
*9 + *
:
,
9
!
" #$
( ;10. The overall picture which thus emerges is that admittedly, the deceased employee had worked for in excess of the requisite one year of service, from 30.07.1992 till his death on 14.12.2006, and that he had also passed the requisite Medical examination on 5.08.1992. Consequently, on account of his death in harness, his widow would become entitled to grant of Family Pension. The same was however not granted, ostensibly as his services were 'not regularized'. But as can be rightly concluded by objectively considering the facts in the light of specific averments of the Petitioner, and evasive denial of the same by the Respondents, the employee himself was not at fault for such lack of regularization. He passed the requisite written examination in the year 2000, but was never called for interview in spite of the Respondents' own written communication dated 30.06.2000 for that purpose. He was not even intimated through his Controlling Authorities about the succeeding written examinations in the years 2002 and 2004. In fact, the Ld. Tribunal went on to hold that the employee
could not clear the Written Test scheduled in 2000, 2001 and 2002. This observation is ex facie in correct since he had actually cleared the Test in 2000, while there is nothing on record even from the side of the Respondents to suggest that any such Test was at all held in 2001. Regarding the following year 2002, the petitioner's allegation that her husband was never intimated for taking the Test is virtually un5rebutted in the pleadings. Further, no rule or instructions have been brought on record to show that "Interview" was a mandatory condition for regularization of services when the employee was performing his duties for 14 years to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that substantially, the responsibility of the 9 of 10 deceased employee's services having remained un5 regularized during his life time, lies with the Respondents themselves.
11. For the above reasons, the impugned Order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed and the Respondents are directed to do the needful for grant of Family Pension and other Retiral benefits of the deceased employee by notionally treating his services as regularized. She shall however, be entitled to arrears of Pension only for a period of three years preceding the filing of her Original Application in the Ld. Tribunal i.e. May, 2012 onwards.
12. The needful be done by the Respondents/Authorities within four months from the date of communication of this Order." *
* +
3
+
01"
5 %"
& ) 5
08$
$ 6
+ * +
+
7
!
" #$
# ,
+
+
00"
*
"
<=*
$$ % &
'
( ) * #+ (,
- " .
>
+
,
#
"
9
( "3. Having heard Shri Rahul Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Ravindra Lokhande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Goa and considering the fact that even by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that action of the State Government in requiring the original petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years or not permitting them to continue in their service upto the age of 60 years is illegal and null and void, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in observing that the appellant will not be entitled to any arrears of pension and the pension at the revised rates will become payable only from 1st January,
2020. As such, the High Court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired/superannuated at the age of 60 years. There is no justification at all by the High Court to deny the pension at the revised rates and payable only from 1 st January, 2020. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal Succeeds in Part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of denying any arrears of pension and holding that the appellant shall be entitled to the pension at the revised rates only from 1st January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held and ordered that the appellant - original writ petitioner shall be entitled to pension at the revised rates from the date he attains the age of 60 years. Now the arrears accordingly shall be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today. Present Appeal is Partly Allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
%
*
+
+
+
9
+
+
7
: *
* +
6
7
+
7
*
<
+
*
+
* +
*
+
+
+
+
0 2
0
'('$
)*
/ 40 0
harsha
/ > ? / *