MRS. VINOD VIRMANI Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is yet another illustration of the casual attitude adopted by the administrative authorities towards the claims of a retired employee/his family. The petitioner is the wife of late Shri R.P. Virmani who died on 6.12.1988 while working as a Lecturer, Government College Cadre. She has been compelled to file this petition only on account of total apathy shown by the respondents in settling her claim regarding G.P.F. Gratuity, and Leave encashment in lieu of the services rendered by her husband.

(2.) A look at the writ petition shows that Shri R.P. Virmani had joined the Government service on 12.10.1961 in the then State of Punjab, After reorganisation of State of Punjab, he continued to be an employee of the State of Punjab. As per the policy of the Government, he was posted in the State Institute of Science Education, Punjab, Chandigarh where he served from 10.7.1979 to 9.3.1986. After his death, during the course of service, the petitioner claimed the benefit of leave encashment, gratuity and G.P.F. For leave encashment, the petitioner submitted an application as early as in January, 1989 and continued to remind the authorities of the Government of Punjab as well as the Chandigarh Administration to settle her claim. Her demand for the G.P.F. was partly fulfilled in April, 1989. However, when she received the sanction letter dated 6.4.1989, it was revealed to her that instead of paying her a sum of Rs. 72,799/-, the Government has paid her only Rs. 59,065/-. She once again entered into correspondence with the respondents 1 to 3 and finally, the payment of Rs. 22,802/- was sanctioned to her on 17.7.1990. Regarding death-cum-retirement gratuity, the papers of the petitioner were submitted by the Director, Public Instructions Chandigarh Administration to the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab, as early as on 20.3.1989. However, the actual payment of the amount of gratuity was made to the petitioner in January, 1991.

(3.) Respondents have filed contradictory replies which show that each one of them has made an attempt to shift burden on the other respondents. In regard to the delay in payment of G.P.F. amount of Rs. 22,802/- no extianation has been offered by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the issue of leave encashment, respondents 1 and 2 have taken - the stand that the benefit of leave encashment is not payable by them. Respondent No.4 has taken the stand that late Shri R.P. Virmani was an employee of Government of Punjab and therefore, benefit of leave encashment has to be paid by the Government of Punjab. On the question of delay in the payment of gratuity, respondents 1 and 2 have pleaded that there was delay on the part of Chandigarh Administration in sending the papers of the petitioner. It has been stated that the complete papers relating to the petitioner's husband were received as late as in May, 1990. Immediately thereafter, the Government submitted the case to the Accountant General, Punjab. Respondent No.3 has stated that the entitlement of gratuity was reported by the respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 19.6.1990 and on receipt of No Dues certificate from the department on 4.1.1991, the gratuity amounting to Rs. one lac was released to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.1.1991.