KRISHNA VATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by widow whose husband joined service of the Haryana State Government in the department of Development and Panchayat as Gram Sachiv on 15.8.1950. During his service career, a dispute arose with regard to his date of birth. In the matriculation certificate as also in the service record, his date of birth has been shown 25.4.1936. On the basis of some complaint in the year 1972, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanesar opined that the date of birth as recorded in the service record of the employee is correct. Later on, after almost 18 years, another enquiry was initiated when the petitioner was suspended on 19.5.1989 and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14.6.1991 expressed his inability to give any finding other than what had already been given in report dated 7.12.1972. The husband of the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.4.1994. Barely after two months of his retirement, he died on 30.6.1994. His widow was issued notice dated 20.10.1994 by the disciplinary authority to show-cause as to why date of birth of her husband be not accepted as 2.1.1929 and the salary and other benefits for the period her husband remained in service beyond the age of superannuation i.e. for 7 years, 3 months and 28 days recovered from her and a cut in pension be imposed.

(2.) Petitioner, on receipt of notice, desired to know as to under what provision of law she has been called upon to show cause and moreover she is not in possession of any document or record which should be made available to her so as to enable her to make any reply. She also submitted that she has no source of income except family pension and the same be released to her along with other benefits. Vide order dated 18.11.1994, the disciplinary authority held that the date of birth of the employee is 2.1.1929 and directed recovery of pay received by the employee from 31.1.1987 to 30.4.1994 and cut in pension of the alleged excess service as also recovery of subsistence allowance for the period from 19.5.1989 to 30.4.1994. Vide order dated 1.12.1994, the Joint Director, Rural Development, Haryana accorded sanction to the grant of cash payment equivalent to 97 days earned leave in lieu of unutilised earned leave. This order is being impugned in this petition on the ground that cash payment in lieu of unutilised leave upto 30.4.1994 has not been made. Both the orders are being impugned on the ground that family pension being a personal right, is free from any condition and cannot be withheld without there being any justifiable reason and the orders have been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) In the written statement, respondents have submitted that on decision given by the disciplinary authority with regard to the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner, pensionary benefits which in law are payable to the petitioner are being released and, therefore, no grievance can be made by the petitioner in this regard. They have also submitted that there is no illegality in the orders which have been passed on the basis of decision given by the disciplinary authority.