Punjab and Haryana High Court slaps costs on itself for delay in paying pension to judge’s widow

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed strong disappointment over delay in releasing the pension and other retiral dues to the wife of a former civil judge who passed away in 2021 [Pritam Kaur v State of Punjab and Others]..The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh slammed the State and High Court on its administrative side (respondents) for the delay and proceeded to impose costs of ₹25,000."Respondents are liable to be fastened with exemplary costs quantified at ₹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. Apportionment of quantum of cost and responsibility of bearing the same, is left for the respondents to decide," the Court ordered.The Court said that pensionary benefits and retail claims are akin to property which cannot be deprived without authority of law as stipulated under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.The denial of pension to the judge and to his widow from March 2018 till March 2024 was not only without any authority of law but also a blatant disregard of law, the Bench added.“Least that can be said about this case is that neither the judicial officer nor his family after his death were treated with dignity and grace. 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 Court said..The order was passed on a writ petition filed by Pritam Kaur, the wife of Gurnam Singh Sewak, Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Magistrate. Sewak had retired from service in 1999.Sewak started his career as an Upper Division Clerk in Punjab Accountant General’s office in 1964 but cleared the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) examination in 1973.He sought voluntary retirement in 1996 but the same was rejected in connection with a departmental enquiry against him. He was also placed under suspension during the pendency of enquiry. After his superannuation in 1999, Sewak was dismissed from service in 2001..However, the High Court in 2018 quashed the chargesheet, enquiry report and the consequent action against him, with the liberty to take fresh action against him in accordance with the law. The High Court’s appeal against the judicial order favouring Sewak was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2019. Due to the pendency of the enquiry and connected case, the pensionary benefits were not released to him. Sewak passed away in 2021. The enquiry against him, however, remained pending.In 2022, Kaur approached the Court with a writ petition for release of the pension and arrears of pension to her. The High Court on the administrative side, however, kept insisting for recovery of ₹1,87,411 received by Sewak as subsistence allowance during his pension and thus neither provisional pension was paid nor the family pension was finalized and paid..However, a year later, the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee in 2023 decided to drop the chargesheets against Sewak and recommended that his suspension period be treated as a leave due and resultant service benefits be released to his family. The High Court (administration) later informed the Accountant General of Punjab of its decision and accordingly the pension and gratuity was sanctioned to Sewak’s family in 2024..In the judgement dated March 7, the Court questioned the decision to withhold the pension to Sewak after 2018 when the penalty of dismissal from service was set aside.“Reply of the respondents is conspicuously silent as to why family pension was sanctioned and released as late as in January-February-2024 whereas the same became due immediately after the death of husband of the petitioner on 02.10.2021,” it added. The Court also questioned the decision (of High Court on administrative side) to insist on recovering the subsistence allowance paid to Sewak during his suspension period from August 1996 and June 1999. “It is incomprehensible especially when the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee decided to drop the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to liberty extended by Division Bench of this Court, that under what provision of law is the subsistence allowance being recovered. Conjoint reading of Rule 7.3(2) & (3) and Rule 7.3.A(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules reveals that except in cases of setting aside of dismissal by Court of law and the employer deciding not to hold further inquiry (as is the case herein), then the period of absence and suspension is bound to be regularized, meaning thereby that no recovery of subsistence allowance can take place.” .Taking note of the delay in releasing his dues, the Court observed that Sewak, who was suffering from various ailments, expired in 2021 in the absence of any provisional or regular pension. Consequently, the Court directed the State to pay Sewak’s widow interest over the arrears of regular pension and family pension. Further, it directed that she be paid interest over the amount of gratuity as well. Costs of ₹25,000 was also imposed on the respondents including the State and the High Court to be paid to the widow..Advocates Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Abhishek Masih and Gaurav Jagota represented the petitioner.Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab. Advocate Dhiraj Chawla represented the High Court..[Read Judgment]