High Court · 2013

Legal Reasoning

Faialbee widow of late Shri M.A, Quereshi State ofChhattisgarh aiid Ors. (Passedon4.l.2013) Shri A.N. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate GeneraJ for the State. Shri L.N. TVagi, Executive Eagineer, Water Resources Department, II, Rato.auujgaaj, District -Bah-axnpur is also present in tlie Division- Court. Heard.

1. The grievajice of fhe petitioner, who is aa uxilbrtiuiate widow of deceased employee, is fhat even though her husband died way back in fhe year 1990, tiU date, the pensionaiy benefits Iiave not been released to her.

2. The facts which have been stated ia tbe petition are that fhe husband ofthe petitioner was imtiaUy appoiated as Sub-Engiaeer iu fhe office of Irrigation, Division-Jhabua. Thereafter, her Executive Engiaeer, husband was posted at different places and wben he was posted at 'TIiere were certain disputes with. Ambikapur, he died on 14.6.1990. regard to fhe avaiSabiiity of authentic docuiaents in support of educational ciualification aad date ofbirfh of deceased-husband offae petitioner. While Iier husband was ia service, the service book was also lost aiid atteinpt was being niade by the departtnent to reconsta-uct fhe service book. However, before service book could be prepared and approved by tlie office of Joiat Director, Treasun', Accounts aad Pensioa, husband of the petitioner died. Mainly on accoiuut of non- finaiization of dupUcate seryice book, family peusion Iias not been respondents have paid extended. According to the petitioner, •• -^^\ ~^"~,.. '^ z- ^. .•.S!. \. ^y "•-.8>..I.^" 4^ Rs.11592/- toward group ia.s'uisace claun and Rs.10,000/- towards famuv pension fuiids after one vear offhe death ofemolovee. It is also stated that the petitioner is beiug paid aiaiutenaitce allowance of Rs.175/- p.iu. fh.at too is irregular. The pensionar}' benefits have not been fmaJized aiid full pension has not been paid to fhe petitioner.

3. On the other haad, leamed counsel for the State subniitted that tlie date of birth of deceased einployee was uiider serious disputes aad even accordiiig to the petitioner, siiice long, fhis dispute was pending •••vifh the department. Way back in. the year 1969, a letter was issued requinng tlie deceased-einployee to subiuit necessaiy records. Relevaut iccords wei^ not subinitted and tlie original seryice book was also lost. A duplicate seivice book was prepared by tlie office of Executive Enguieer on fhe basis of iafoi-mation collected, but, tiie saine has not been approved tffl date by the office of Jouit Director, Treasur;r, Accounts aud Pension laaialv for fhe reason fhat fhe service book has not beea found to be coiuplete. He subnuts that on account of relevant iBform.ation. beiag not available, particularly with. reganl to tiie date of birth aad ofher iaforrnation ia respect of period during which the deceased employee reinained posted at different places, fhe service book is stiU not finalized aad approved, on account of which vaiious dues could not be paid till date. Learued counsel for the State draws attention ofthis Court to m.eirio dated 2.7.2004 (Annexure R-4) ofthe Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, BiEaspur to submit fhat when the dupUcate service book was subuutted before fhe Joint Director, Treasun7, Accounts and Pension, tb.e same has not been approved, fherefore, ia fhese circuinstaiices unless the service book is conipleted aad finaUy approved, fhe peasionaiy benefits cannot be finalized.

4. The pleadiags of fhe uarties aad docuiaents on record reveal fhat on, accouiit of non-fiiialization of the duplicate service book of fhe deceased^einployee, fhe famUy pension is not betag fiiiaiized. The Executi.ve Engineer/respoudent No.3 who is present in fhe Court iuformed the Court that fhe Joiat Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension has not approved the duplicate service book prepared by his ofiice because of various objections aud fh.erefore atteiupts arc beitig m.ade to get inore iaform.ation. He further subinitted fhat ifthe relevaat detaits with regard to fhe date of birfh of fhe deceased eiuoloyee is ?:'3r'!:;'2\\ ^^as^^, ')>„ Jl ''(»"< 'l'x-ri'1 3 'Y Mi laade available bv the uetitioner, fhe atteinnts would be inade to coinplete fhe infoinration ia tlie dux>Ucate service book aad seek fresh auuroval ofthe Joiat Director, Treasurv, Accounts aad Pensioa.

5. It appears fhat even before fhe deafh of the einployee, there existed certaia disoutes wifh regard to his date of birth. The docuaaeuts which have been placed on record show fhat even-siuce 1969, uiquiry were being niade froia deceased eniployee aad he was being asked to subniit proof/certi&cate of qualificatioa, date ofbirth etc. It is also found that his sendce book was also lost aad duplicate service book was prepared way back ia ftie year 1977. Araidst aU these discrepancies, eiaployee died on 14.6.1990. The reason for rejecting proposal offhe respondents to approve duplicate service book ass^ned by ttie office of .Joiat Drrector, Ti^asury, Accounts aiid Pension vide letter dated 2.7.2004 (Annexure R-4J is fhat the service book is not coinplete aad, ftierefore, caanot be approved.

6. In these circuinstaaces, it is necessaiy to direct respondent No.2 to collect the iaformatioa vnfh regard to fhe date of birth of fhe deceased- In case th.e petitioner. eniployee dociunents/certificate wifhin a period of30 days froin today, the saine If no such shatl be niade a basis to complete tbe service book. docuiaent is avaUable, the petitioner shaU subinit an affidavit before the Executive Engiueer with regard to the date of birth of deceased the petitioner subinits einployee and any other affidavit of any ineinber of fhe famfly of fhe deceased-eiuployee in support of her own afEdavit aiid on fhat basis, tlie service book shaU be coinpleted aad tlie sam.e shall be fonvarded to fhe Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension withia oue nionfh. froia fhe date of subinission of dociuneuts /affidavit on behalf ofthe the duplicate service petitioner. V»rifb.ui aa outer limit of 3 nionfhs, book shaU. be finalized an.d fb.e pensiouary benefits which. niay be admissible to fhe petitioner accordiag to entries niade ia fhe service book with regari. to fhe period of seryice, pay, etc, shall be imiuediately rele&sed to ftie petitioner by the respondents.

Decision

7. Wifh fhe aforesaid dircctions, fhe petitiou is finaUy disposed off. Man-mdraMohanShrivastava Judge