'Neither Judicial Officer Nor His Family Were Treated With Dignity After Death: P&H HC Imposes Costs On Its Admin For Delay In Issuing Pension

Observing that "neither the judicial officer nor his family after his death were treated with dignity and grace," the Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs.25,000 on its administrative side and the State for the delay in releasing the pension and other retiral dues to the widow of a former civil judge.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh said, "it is settled law that pensionary benefits as and when become due and admissible, if not released, are liable to be paid with interest and cost. The pensionary benefits and retiral claims are akin to property which cannot be deprived without authority of law as stipulated in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Denial of provisional/superannuation pension to the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner from 09.03.2018 till March-2024 was not only without authority of law but also is blatant disregard of law."

Court stated that "The present case reflects a sorry state of affairs", the Court issued a writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay interest over the arrears of regular pension and family pension paid late @ 10% per annum calculated from the date the regular pension became due w.e.f. July 01, 1999 and the family pension became due w.e.f.October 03, 2021 till realization."

It added that the respondents are liable to be fastened with exemplary costs quantified at Rs.25,000, which shall be paid to the petitioner (widow of the deceased judicial officer) within a period of 60 days, failing which the petition be put up as PUD before the appropriate Bench for execution.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Pritam Kaur, the wife of Gurnam Singh Sewak, Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Magistrate, who retired from service in 1999.

The judge sought voluntary retirement in 1996, but the same was rejected in connection with a departmental enquiry against him. He was also suspended during the pendency of the enquiry. In 2001 the judge was dismissed from service.

However, the High Court in 2018 quashed the charge sheet, enquiry report and the consequent action against him, with the liberty to take fresh action against him in accordance with the law. The appeal filed by the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Due to the pendency of the enquiry and connected case, the pensionary benefits were not released to the retired officer and he passed away in 2021.

After examining the suspension, the Court noted that "In the absence of any provisional or regular pension, the petitioner, who was suffering from different ailments, expired on 02.10.2021."

It highlighted that the petitioner (widow of the deceased judicial officer) preferred this petition, during the pendency of which, Vigilance Disciplinary Committee of the High Court on March 24, 2023 dropped both the charge-sheets issued in 1997-1998 and resolved that the period spent during suspension from August 17, 1996 to June 30, 1999 be treated as leave due and the service benefits be released in favour of the legal heirs of deceased judicial officer.

Consequently, the Court directed the State to pay the widow interest over the arrears of regular pension and family pension and an interest over the amount of gratuity as well.

Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate and

Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

Title: Pritam Kaur v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 113

Click here to read/download the order