SARJIT KAUR Vs. BHAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23.1.2002 while disposing of CWP No.1915 of 2000, this Court has issued directions to the respondents to finalize his case regarding sanction and release of pensionary benefits in respect of the petitioner. A period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order was granted with a further direction that if the full amount due to the petitioner was not paid, then she was to be entitled to claim interest @ 12% per annum on the aforementioned amount. While issuing the aforementioned directions, the Court has clarified that the interest if paid on the amount so due, was to be recovered from the official responsible for any further delay. The petitioner was also directed to co-operate with the authorities in case she was asked to do so and to supply necessary information within her possession. It is appropriate to mention that the husband of the petitioner was assassinated in a family dispute, in the year 1966 and the petitioner, who is widow had claimed the family pension. From the perusal of Annexures R2/1 to R2/5, it is evident that the last limb of the information, to the respondent, to complete service book, was furnished by the petitioner on 27.5.2003. It was intimated that the husband of the petitioner was posted as Kanungo at Moga from COCP No.656 of 2003 -2- 1.10.1963 to 19.6.1966 when he was assassinated. Earlier to that, information in piece meal has been collected by the respondents from the petitioner. On the completion of information on 27.5.2003, respondent did not lose further time and on 6.6.2003 recommended her case for release of family pension.

(2.) Accordingly, the Accountant General sanctioned the family pension on 16.7.2003. Mr.PPS Duggal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that interest is liable to be paid to the petitioner as the period of four months expired in April/May 2002. According to him huge delay has been caused by the respondents and there is no fault of the petitioner. Mr. Bhanot, learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued that there is no delay on the part of the respondents. According to the learned State counsel, last information with regard to the posting of her husband was furnished by the petitioner on 27.5.2003, as is evident from R- 2/5. Learned counsel has further pointed out that correspondence Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/5 would show that respondents have been making tremendous efforts to extract information from the petitioner, which has been furnished in piecemeal. Therefore, it has been maintained that there is no delay and the order has been complied with in a period of four months granted by the Court especially when the aforementioned period is analysed in the light of the directions issued by the Court asking the petitioner to cooperate with the respondents.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the respondent because there is no delay on their part. The petitioner has been furnishing information in bits and pieces. Before sending the information on 27.5.2003, the petitioner was asked by the respondents vide R-2/3 that the service book of her husband had been got completed from Tehsildar Muktsar, who had attested the service book from 31.5.1959 to 31.10.1961. She was asked to intimate in writing to the respondent as to which city or office her husband was transferred from Mukstsar in order to enable the office to complete the service book. The aforementioned information was sent by the petitioner on 27.5.2003 vide Annexure R-2/5 and thereafter on 6.6.2003, respondents recommended her case to the Accountant General, who had sanctioned the pension on 15.7.2003. From 27.5.2003 to 15.7.2003, a period of less than two months have been consumed. Therefore, no fault can be found with the respondents so as to entitle the petitioner to claim interest. The directions issued by this Court stand complied with. Rule is discharged.