VEER BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How unreasonable the Government functionary can be, may be noticed from this case. Veer Bhan is an unfortunate husband of Pushpa Lata, who while working as S.D.C. under respondent No. 2, had died after prolonged illness. She was paralysed. Prior to her death, she had sought voluntarily retirement on attaining the age of 54 years in the year 2004. Since she was suffering from paralysis, she could not visit the office to sign the papers. The necessary documents for release of retiral benefits also remained pending due to non-sanction of sick leave for the period she could not attend the office. On 13.3.2007, a request was made to respondent No. 2 to give details of necessary formalities required to be completed for grant and release of the retiral benefits. Pushpa Lata, however, died on 9.5.2007.

(2.) An application for commutation of pension was submitted but was returned on 17.9.2008 by observing that the petitioner had expired on 9.5.2007 before sending the application. What could the husband do?. He was in no position to make his wife sign as she was no more. He is a legal heir entitled to the pensionary claims. The petitioner served a legal notice which was rejected on 24.11.2008. It is stated that late Pushpa Lata never applied for commutation of pension before her death and, thus, the petitioner, who is a husband, is not entitled to the commuted value of the pension under Rule 11.16 of Punjab CSR Vol.-II as applicable to Haryana.

(3.) What an attitude by a welfare State. Instead of realising their responsibility to pay the retiral benefits to the legal heir-husband of late Pushpa Lata, the respondents would choose the contest the writ petition as well. It is conceded that Pushpa Lata had sought voluntarily retirement from the service on 31.7.2006, which was allowed. It is also conceded that she had an option to commute for a lump-sum payment of any portion, not exceeding 40% of eligible pension. It is then stated that the commutation value could be released if the application was submitted within one year from the date of retirement. It is then pointed out that the late wife of the petitioner sought voluntarily retirement on 31.7.2006 and she expired on 9.5.2007 before signing and submitting the application for commutation value of pension. It is also pointed out that the application was signed and submitted by her husband (the petitioner) after the death of his wife and, thus, he is not entitled for commuted value of the pension. Reference is made to Rule 11.16 of Punjab CSR Vol.-II, which reads as under:-