MOST. JAGIA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar/Dafadar on 13.02.1970 and he died on 12.06.1992. However, the pensionary benefit/family pension to the petitioner was not granted and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3527 of 2010 seeking grant of family pension as well as appointment for her younger son on compassionate ground. By order dated 15.06.2011, a direction was issued to the respondents to pass appropriate order on the petitioner's claim for family pension. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 15.06.2011, family pension to the petitioner has been granted by the order dated 28.01.2012. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which, the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest has been sought to be denied by the respondents by taking a stand that, since the petitioner did not submit documents, her claim for grant of family pension was not decided. Paragraph Nos. 16 and 21 of the counter-affidavit are extracted below:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) From the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.06.1992 in harness. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-employee namely, Late Mohan Mahli, is not disputed by the respondents. From the counter-affidavit it is clear that, the only plea taken by the respondents is that, the family pension of the petitioner could not be finalised due to negligence of the petitioner in submitting the documents. I do not find any statement made in the counter-affidavit, whether any intimation was given to the petitioner for submitting requisite documents. Since, the petitioner is the wife of the deceased-employee, it was for the respondents to take necessary steps in the matter and give intimation to the petitioner. It is the statutory duty of the respondents to finalise and pay the family pension to the petitioner however, in the present case for long 20 years, the respondents did not pay family pension to the petitioner and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3527 of 2010.