'Lackadaisical Approach': HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Punjab Govt For Denying Retiral Benefits, Pension To Widow Of Constable Who Died In Line Of Duty

The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the Punjab Government for its "lackadaisical approach" in denying death-cum- retiral benefits and family pension to widow of a constable who died on duty.

The petitioner-widow was denied the pension on the ground that the salary was released to the deceased husband of the petitioner while he was under treatment and the same was recoverable as directed by the Accountant General and since the petitioner refused to make the said payments, the death-cum-retiral benefits and other retiral benefits had been withheld.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma noted that it is an admitted position from the record that the petitioner's husband was a constable and died due to an accident while on duty.

"The entire period of service is, therefore, liable to be treated as duty period. To treat the petitioner to be on medical rest and delete his leave regularly as well as leave without pay, for so called regularizing the said period, is nothing but an illegality committed in the light of provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995," said the Court.

These observations came in response to the plea filed by the widow of a constable who died on duty in 2012, seeking directions to the respondents to release pensionary, death-cum- retiral benefits along with interest on account of the death of her husband while on duty.

The petitioner's husband was appointed as a Constable in 1992 and while on duty he met with a road accident and remained under treatment. For a long time, he was unable to talk and move properly and ultimately passed away in 2012.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's husband met with an accident and expired while on duty, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits which are available to a constable who expires while on duty.

He further submitted that as the deceased constable became disabled and could not perform his duties, therefore, he was entitled to regular salary in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Considering the submissions, the Court said that it is "saddened to notice the manner in which the officers of the State Government have approached the present case" which was directed to be decided by them in terms of the order passed by the Court in 2019.

It was submitted by the State in December 2019 that the claim of the petitioner concerning the grant of benefit under the provisions of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in that regard within three months. Consequently, the Court had ordered the respondents to pass such an order and place it on record.

However, no order was passed and the death-cum- retiral benefits and family pension were further denied to the widow.

A separate affidavit had also been filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, stating that legal opinion was obtained from the District Attorney (Legal), wherein, it is stated that a person with disability is required to be protected but since there is no disability certificate of deceased constable, nor there is any medical record relating to the accident or treatment given to him, the claim of the petitioner in the light of the provisions of the Disability Act, 1995, cannot be examined.

The petitioner had placed on record all the certificates regarding the treatment of her husband, whereafter, a speaking order was directed to be passed by the Court and the Senior Superintendent of Police, after looking into the entire record had sent the matter to the Board of Doctors for their opinion, who had stated that they have not examined the patient and, therefore, they cannot comment about the disability asked for in the application.

On the above grounds, it was submitted that the claim of the petitioner ought to have been rejected as the petitioner has not been able to produce the disability certificate issued by the competent authority.

Perusing Section 47 of the Disability Act, 1995, the Court opined that "it is apparent that the word 'disability' would not be only with regard to the certificates issued but would mean a person who is disabled to perform his duties on account of illness."

Considering that the person who met with an accident remained under treatment and was not available to perform his duties, he was entitled to receive a regular salary for the said period, added the Court.

Justice Sharma further noted that as per Rule 2.7 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume II), apart from death-cum-retiral benefits, the petitioner, who is the widow of a deceased constable who died while in service, would also be entitled to ex gratia grant as well..

"It is to be noticed that Senior Superintendent of Police, who is required to know the rules relating to making of payment under ex gratia head of the employees of the department, has rather filed an affidavit denying the said benefit to the petitioner," said the Court.

Adding that the interest on the account of ex gratia shall be, therefore, paid to the petitioner, the Court said, "the recovery as suggested by the Accountant General is thus found to be not made out."

In light of the above, the Court directed that the petitioner would also be entitled to death-cum-retiral benefits including payment of ex gratia on account of the death of her husband while on duty.

Considering that the petitioner has been denied the family pension to which she was entitled immediately upon the death of her husband, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.1 Lakh is imposed upon the State Government for adopting such a "lackadaisical approach."

Appearance: K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate and Sakshi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 18