Litigant Knocked On Court's Door Six Times Seeking Pension: Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes ₹8 Lakh Cost On Employer For Denying Retiral Benefits, Abusing Legal Process

Observing that, "pensionary benefits is a constitutional right" and cannot be deprived "except by authority of law", the Punjab & Haryana High has imposed a cost of Rs.8 lakh on Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran (DHBVN) for compelling its employee to approach the Court six times for seeking retrial benefits and acting in contemptuous manner.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "Considering the...facts and circumstances, wherein the petitioner had not only knocked at the doors of this Court for six times but he also lost his battle of life while litigating before this Court for enforcement of his Statutory and Constitutional Rights, this Court is therefore of the view that although the action of the aforesaid officers of the respondent-DHBVNL, who passed the aforesaid impugned orders was contemptuous in nature but considering the fact that the aforesaid orders were passed in the year 2008 and 2020, respectively, instead of proceeding against the aforesaid officers for contempt of Court, it will be just and proper and in the interest of justice to impose exemplary costs upon the respondent-DHBVNL in the present case."

The Court added that the costs of Rs.8 Lakh will be "in the nature of compensation."

Pension and pensionary benefits are a Constitutional right since it is Right to Property and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his Right to Property except by the authority of law, added the judge.

These observations were made in response to the petition filed by Chander Prakash, who also lost his life during the pendency of the case after struggling for his constitutional rights for 21 years. Prakash alleged that DHBVN had illegally withheld an amount of Rs.2.13 lakhs from pension benefits when he retired in 1999.

It was alleged by DHBVN that there was a shortage of material and missing parts of the transformer and oil at the time when he was in service and sought to be recovered from his retiral benefits including the gratuity.

The Court noted that the petitioner filed successive petitions challenging the order of the department wherein two annual increments were stopped and directed to be deducted from his retiral benefits on account of the shortage of material and transformer missing parts and oil during his service. However, the said order was set aside by the Division bench of the High Court in 2008 and a direction was also issued to release the withheld amount within three months.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that in 2008 the High Court noted that DHBVN held that it was bound to take 'appropriate action' and 'in accordance with law' but it "rather acted contrary to law."

After 9 years of his retirement, a show cause notice was issued without there being any provision of law under any Rules. "There is nothing on the record to show as to under what authority of law the show cause notice was issued," the judge noted.

The Court highlighted that the "Show cause notice is clearly with a pre-determined mind, wherein twice it has been stated that it has been 'decided' to recover from the petitioner. Therefore, it was a mere empty formality and violative of rule of audi alteram partem."

It held that the "Impugned order is ex facie un-reasoned order. Although petitioner raised various issues in reply to show cause notice...but not even a single issue raised was discussed and not even single reason was mentioned in the order."

Justice Puri also took note of the fact that "Present petition is a sixth petition filed by the petitioner and during pendency of this petition, he has died after struggling for his Statutory and Constitutional Rights for 21 years."

Consequently, the Court set aside the order wherein the petitioner's retiral benefit was withheld and "directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,13,611/- to the petitioner, along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple), within a period of three months."

Adding that the "Court is conscious of the fact with regard to the quantum of costs in the nature of compensation but considering the action of respondents to have caused gross abuse of process of law, the quantum of costs is well justified being in the interest of justice," the bench imposed a cost of Rs. 8 lakhs, out which Rs.4 lakh to be paid to the four legal representatives of the petitioner.

Title: CHANDER PRAKASH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs v. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS

Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 156

Vivek Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

Click here to read/download the order