'State Has Tried To Take Away Right To Life Of A Widow': Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Woman's Plea For Pension, Imposes 2 Lakh Cost On State

The Punjab And Haryana High Court has allowed a petition filed by a widow challenging the order withholding the family pension and pensionary benefits of her deceased husband who was convicted in a criminal case during his service as a Junior Scale Stenographer in Punjab.“No justification has come forth as to under what authority of law, the pension and other benefits of the husband of the petitioner and family pension of the petitioner have been withheld or denied. Therefore, the Constitutional, Statutory and Human Right of the petitioner has been violated by the State,” Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said in the order. BackgroundThe petitioner's husband worked as a Junior Scale Stenographer in the Office of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. During the course of his service, an FIR under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148 & 149 IPC was lodged against him. He was convicted and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment while he was still in service. Before his conviction, he had applied for premature retirement without disclosing the ongoing criminal proceedings against him. On 31.03.2014, an order was passed by the competent authority by which he was retired and no condition of any sort was put on the retirement. After his retirement, he applied for pensionary benefits, but they were withheld by the Office of the Accountant General, Punjab. He passed away four months later, and his widow - the petitioner, sought to claim the retiral benefits and family pension.In 2016, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the court seeking the grant of family pension and all the retiral benefits which accrued to her husband. The court directed the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab to decide the entitlement of the husband for the grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.Meanwhile, disciplinary action was initiated against some of the departmental officials who were accused of conniving with the petitioner's husband and not disclosing his conviction while considering his retirement. The petitioner was not implicated in this disciplinary action, and a punishment order was passed against the officials in March 2020.In July 2019, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab passed an order withholding the pension and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner's husband under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, citing his concealment of the conviction and his alleged connivance with departmental officials. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition.VerdictThe court observed that in case pension is to be withheld, only 1/3rd of the pension amount could be withheld and that too after giving an opportunity of hearing and also after getting sanction from the Punjab Service Commission. The court then noted that in the present case, the person was a dead person and there was no question of giving any opportunity nor anything has been placed on record to show that any sanction was obtained from the Punjab Service Commission.While explicating Rule 2.2(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the court noted that in the present case, there was neither any departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding pending against the husband of the petitioner at the time when the impugned order was passed in 2019 and therefore, the pension or even the gratuity could not have been withheld even under the sub-rule (c) of Rule 2.2.Considering the facts of the case where the petitioner is a widow and her husband had died 8 years ago, the court said that it is not only that Article 300-A has been violated but even Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed wherein the State has tried to take away the Right to Life of a widow.Can a person who is entitled to pension or a family pension under the statutory rules be denied the same? The court noted that Punjab government has not been able to show as to under what provision of law or under what authority of law, the pension and pensionary benefits or family pension has been denied."Admittedly, there was no disciplinary proceeding against the husband of the petitioner and here was no judicial proceeding at the time of passing of the impugned order in the year 2019 since the husband of the petitioner had already died and it was for the first time after the death of the husband of the petitioner that by way of impugned order, it has been so observed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies that the husband of the petitioner is guilty of misconduct which is an order against a dead person which is not permissible under the law," said the court. The court also observed that the husband of the petitioner had retired by passing of an order by the Registrar Cooperative Societies. "The date on the order is 25.03.2014 but it is released on endorsement to various offices on 31.03.2014. Therefore, no fault can be attributable to the husband of the petitioner," it added.While allowing the petition and setting...

'State Has Tried To Take Away Right To Life Of A Widow': Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Woman's Plea For Pension, Imposes 2 Lakh Cost On State

Bhavya Singh

Tags