RUPINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the one of the heirs of late Shri Jaspal Singh for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay the retiral benefits of late Shri Jaspal Singh alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

(2.) The facts mentioned in the writ petition show that the father of the petitioner, late Shri Jaspal Singh, who had joined service on 27.1.1965 as Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies, died on 2.8.1978, while he was still in service. The petitioner has stated that about one month prior to the death of his father, his mother had also expired on 8.7.1978 and he was given employment as a dependent of the deceased employee and this provided the source of sustenance to his family, which includes his two sisters and one brother. The petitioner has alleged that pay scales of the Punjab Government employees were revised with effect from 1.1.1978 but the benefit of the revision of pay scales has not been given in the case of his father and although after his death heirs of late Shri jaspal Singh became entided to the grant of payment of ex-gratia, family pension etc. no payment has been made to them by the departmental authorities. The petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs. 5000/- only was paid to the family of late Shri Jaspal Singh towards ex-gratia and all their efforts to persuade the departmental authorities to pay the amount of family pension etc. have proved futile. Reference has been made to letters dated 25.7.1984 (Annexure P-5) written by the Food and Supplies Controller, Bhatinda, and Annexure P-6 dated 9.7.1985 written by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, to the District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhatinda. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding the inter- departmental correspondence, actual benefits have not been given to the family members of late Shri Jaspal Singh and in this manner the respondents have deprived them of their property right.

(3.) The writ petition was filed in the month of June, 1993. Notice of motion of the writ petition was served on the respondents in September, 1993. No reply was filed by the respondents in response to the notice of motion. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was admitted on 1.10.1993. By now a period of more than one year and six months has elapsed from the date of filing of the writ petition and a period of more than one year and four months has elapsed since the date of service of notices of the writ petition. However, the respondents have not chosen to file reply to the writ petition. In the absence of a written reply, the averments made in the writ petition will have to be treated as correct and the petition will have to be decided on the basis of those averments.