MURTI DEVI Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) The husband of the Petitioner late Sri Ram Sharan Singh was a foreman in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (from hereinafter referred to as B.H.E.L), which is a public sector corporation situate in Haridwar, Uttarakhand. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme (from hereinafter referred to as VRS) was floated for the employees of B.H.E.L. Since the Petitioner's husband came under the said Scheme he offered to take voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Consequently after due formalities were completed, an order was passed by the Competent Authority by which the Petitioner's husband was to voluntary retire from service and was liable to be given an amount equal to his salary for 38 months. Such an order by which the Petitioner's husband was given v. and the amount was also fixed is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition- a fact which is admitted by B.H.E.L. As per the order, the Petitioner was to be relieved from the Corporation on 24.8.2003 and thereafter he was liable to be given the said payment as referred above. 24.8.2003 was admittedly a Sunday (a non-working day in the factory, in which the Petitioner's husband worked). The husband of the Petitioner reported for duties on 23.8.2003, but when he had gone for lunch to his house, he passed away at his residence. His widow, who is the present Petitioner, consequently informed the Authorities by her representation dated 23.9.2003 for the payment of VRS, being her only wife, natural heir, and nominee. The first representation to this effect is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter she made representations on 22.9.2003 and 30.10.2006, but all in vain. The Petitioner hence was constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by B.H.E.L. The only objection raised by the Corporation for not granting the monetary benefit as visualised in the v. as applicable to the Petitioner's husband was that the husband of the Petitioner died on 23.8.2003 a day prior to when he was liable to be relieved, and therefore, no money is liable to be paid to the Petitioner.