The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) and Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) for denying a widow her pension for over 12 years. The Court emphasized that “the pension and pensionary benefits, including a family pension, are not a charity done by the State; it is a duty of the State” to provide these benefits. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri remarked that a poor widow had been unjustly denied the family pension due to administrative inefficiencies, forcing her to navigate a complicated system after her husband’s retirement and subsequent death.
During the hearing, the Court noted that the widow had been deprived of the family pension for 12 years due to unjustified reasons. It was highlighted that after the bifurcation of the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) into four organizations, the widow was told that she needed to apply to the new HVPNL authorities, despite having filed her application with DHBVN in 2010. The Court pointed out that the State authorities had abdicated their responsibilities by not granting the widow the family pension to which she was legally entitled.
The case was being heard under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, where the petitioner sought to quash the Haryana State authorities' decision to withhold interest on her family pension arrears from May 20, 2008, to July 31, 2020. Sujata Mehta, the petitioner, had submitted that her husband, who worked as a Reader-cum-Circle Superintendent at HSEB, passed away in 2008, shortly after retiring in 1999.
The Court observed that if the bifurcation of HSEB was done via legislation and subsequent instructions, it was the responsibility of the newly formed boards to manage the pension applications. Justice Puri stated that it was unreasonable to expect a poor widow to navigate such bureaucratic technicalities. The Court criticized the practice of requiring the petitioner to run from one office to another as insensitive and unacceptable.
Justice Puri underscored that the widow should not have had to submit an application at all, as there was no dispute regarding her late husband’s employment status. He emphasized that the onus to ensure the family pension was processed lay solely with the statutory bodies, not with the widow. The Court also referenced the ruling in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar to support the claim that the right to receive a pension is both a statutory and constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the Court allowed the plea, ordering that interest be granted at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of the husband’s death until the actual disbursement, which must occur within three months. In conclusion, the Court opined that the widow was entitled to exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh for the distress caused.
The case is titled Sujata Mehta v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others, with Mr. S.K. Verma representing the petitioner and Mr. Ravinder S. Budhwar representing the respondents.
.jpeg)
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.