BHARPUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeta Rani wife of the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on 06.10.1995 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa for 89 days and thereafter she continued to work on adhoc basis as she was granted extension in services from time to time. It appears that she continued her services until her services were terminated by Deputy Commissioner, Mansa on 13.11.1997 on the ground of misconduct. It is also come out that Seeta Rani filed Civil Suit No.413 dated 20.10.1999 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, against her termination, which was dismissed on 21.05.2001. Civil Appeal No.294 dated 15.06.2001 filed by Seeta Rani against the suit was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot on 04.02.2003. Thereafter, Seeta Rani approached this Court by way of regular second appeal. In the meanwhile, it comes out that the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide its order dated 14.11.2003 (Annexure P-2) while hearing the matter on the administrative side reinstated Seeta Rani in services. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:

(2.) Consequently, Seeta Rani was reinstated in services by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa vide his order dated 18.12003 (Annexure P-3) and her services were regularized vide order dated 24.05.2004 (Annexure P-4). Unfortunately, Seeta Rani died on 03.05.2007. The petitioner who is husband of the deceased claims that only GPF and GIS was released and family pension, leave encashment, gratuity and exgratia has not been paid to him. The prayer is for release of the said benefits.

(3.) In the reply, the State has not disputed the fact that the deceased was employed for 89 days. Her termination, result of the Civil Suit and order passed by the Commissioner and her regularization in services, were also not denied. The plea has been taken that the Local Audit Party raised the objection that salary for the period February, 2003 to January, 2004 amounting to Rs.45 lakh has been wrongly paid to Seeta Rani. It is apparent that for these reasons the said benefits has not been released. It also comes out that the Deputy Commissioner addressed a communication dated 22.04.2009 (Annexure P-7) to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), seeking guidance in the matter. However, vide letter dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure P-8) the Financial Commissioner left it to the Deputy Commissioner to take the decision in the matter.