Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing the impugned letter dated 10-04-2013 and recovery letter dated 06-12-2023, whereby the pension of the petitioner’s husband was reduced by the respondents, Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J., stated that in the present case, the petitioner’s husband was never reverted while he was in service and he retired as Lower Division Clerk. Thus, the Court stated that it was very strange and shocking to read the language of the letter, issued by the Chief Engineer wherein the petitioner was directed to pass the typing test after his retirement otherwise he would be reverted. The Court stated that the respondent’s action was absolutely arbitrary, shocking and ex facie illegal. The Court directed the respondents to refix the pension and all the pensionary benefits starting from the time when the petitioner’s husband retired and grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner, who was his widow, regarding the benefits which her husband was entitled as Lower Division Clerk. Further, the petitioner being a widow was entitled for Rs. 2,00,000, which should be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, withing three months.
Background
In the present case, petitioner’s husband was working as a Chowkidar in the respondent-Corporation, and on 15-09-1989, he was promoted to Lower Division Clerk. There was a condition that a person, who was promoted, had to pass the typing test within a specific period. Repeatedly, the petitioner’s husband was informed regarding the passing of the typing test, and he was also seeking exemption. However, the petitioner’s husband, neither passed the typing test nor any exemption was granted to him and ultimately, he retired on 31-10-2012.
After his retirement, the Chief Engineer wrote a letter to the petitioner’s husband on 10-04-2013 directing him to pass the mandatory typing test within a period of three months otherwise he would be reverted to the post of Chowkidar. Thereafter, after the retirement of petitioner’s husband, his pension and pensionary benefits were refixed based on the reversion although the order of reversion was not on record, and he was paid the pensionary benefits for the post of Chowkidar. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband died on 29-04-2018 and thereafter, family pension and other benefits of the petitioner, who was a widow, were also fixed based on the salary of her husband as Chowkidar.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in the present case, a widow had knocked the doors of this Court for enforcement of her statutory rights and constitutional rights, as envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner’s husband was never reverted while he was in service, and he retired as Lower Division Clerk. Thus, the Court stated that it was very strange and shocking to read the language of the letter, which was issued by the Chief Engineer wherein the petitioner was directed to pass the typing test after his retirement otherwise he would be reverted.
The Court stated that it was a settled law that after an employee’s retirement, the master and servant relationship ceases to operate. If any action was required to be taken after the retirement of an ex-employee, then same could always be taken when there was an express authority of law and provision of law. The Court stated that when there was no provision of law or no authority of law, the actions of the respondents was arbitrary, ex facie illegal and was liable to be set aside.
The Court directed the respondents to refix the pension and all the pensionary benefits starting from the time when the petitioner’s husband retired and grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner, who was his widow, with regard to the benefits which her husband was entitled as Lower Division Clerk, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (simple) within a period of three months. Similarly, the family pension, pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits of the petitioner should also be refixed as if the petitioner’s husband had retired on the post of the Lower Division Clerk and pay to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (simple) within the aforesaid period of three months.
The Court stated that the respondent’s action was absolutely arbitrary, shocking and ex facie illegal. Further, the petitioner being a widow would be entitled for Rs. 2,00,000, which should also be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, withing three months. The respondent should be at liberty to recover the aforesaid costs from the officer after fixing responsibility strictly in accordance with law.
[Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 6200, Order dated on 22-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rajesh Goyal, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate and G.S. Madaan, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
