BABITA Vs. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is the widow of the employee Sh. Jai Parkash claiming pension from the respondent no.1/employer.

(2.) THE fact of the matter is that the husband of the petitioner namely Sh. Jai Parkash, during his life time, did not opt for the pension scheme in spite of a last Memorandum dated 19.8.2005 (and the cutoff date of the same being 31.8.2005), and therefore, late Sh. Jai Parkash received the entire terminal benefits as payable to him as an employee under the service rules. It could not be disputed before me that the lumpsum benefits were duly paid to and utilized by Sh. Jai Parkash in his life time. Sh. Jai Parkash died on 22.2.2006. It is thereafter that this petition has been filed for claiming pension by the widow of late Sh. Jai Parkash.

(3.) I may note that even if Sh. Jai Parkash, in his life time had applied for grant of pension, the same would not have been payable to him because not only Sh. Jai Parkash exercised the opinion for grant of pension, but also on the other hand he utilized the lumpsum benefits, which he received as terminal benefits, and therefore, he would be estopped from claiming pension. I have had an occasion to examine the aspect of estoppel in my recent judgment in the case of R. Kothandaraman v. The Speaker, Lok Sabha Secretariat & Anr., in W.P.(C) No. 7132/2009, decided on 10.1.2013 wherein I have held that on taking of voluntary retirement if a person receives complete lumpsum benefits and utilizes the same, thereafter, he again cannot claim benefits of reinstatement in service. Applying the principle of the above decision, late Sh. Jai Parkash having taken all the service benefits during his life time, late Jai Parkash as also the present petitioner are estopped from claiming the pension benefits as claimed in this writ petition.