This order dismissed two writ petitions upholding the observations of the Tribunal which directed the release of ex-gratia amounts in favor of the deceased officers' family, finding no case for interference once the impugned order was complied with.
No interference with the Tribunal's order; no interest payable. Petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
[1] Civil Writ Petition No.11276 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 13, 2015
State of Haryana .......Petitioner
versus Saroj Panwar and others .....Respondents
[2] Civil Writ Petition No.16223 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 13, 2015
Saroj Panwar and others .....Petitioners versus Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.Naveen Kaushik, Additional AG, Haryana, for the petitioner in CWP No.11276 of 2013 and for respondent No.2 in CWP No.16223 of 2013. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.16223 of 2013 and
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CWP No.11276 of 2013.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.11276 and 16223 of 2013 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.
For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.11276 of 2013.
[2] State of Haryana assails the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the petitioner-authorities have been directed
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.11 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP Nos.11276 and 16223 of 2013.
[2]
to release the payment of ex-gratia amount in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as per the State Government Policy.
[3] The facts may be noticed briefly. The husband of first respondent and father of respondent Nos.2 & 3, namely, late Ramesh Chander Panwar was a member of Haryana Forest Service. His Original Application filed alongwith other batchmates seeking appointment to Indian Forest Service was pending before the Tribunal when he unfortunately died on 01.12.1998. That Original Application was allowed on 28.09.1999 and pursuant thereto, the select list for the year 1996 was prepared in which the name of deceased-officer was also included. There was yet another round of litigation and finally the deceased officer with his two batch-mates was appointed to Indian Forest Service (for short, 'IFS') against the vacancies of year 1997. He was thus a member of IFS for all intents and purposes when he unfortunately died.
[4] The widow of the deceased, namely, respondent No.1 was meanwhile appointed by the State Government under its ex-gratia Policy. After the induction of her deceasedhusband in IFS, she alongwith her two minor children applied for the award ex-gratia amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. That claim was resisted by State Government on the ground that respondent No.1 had already been appointed under the ex-gratia Policy.
[5] The Tribunal vide order under challenge rejected such a plea on the strength of the Government Policy which does not create such an embargo. That apart, other two claimants are minor children of the deceased-employee, against whom the State's plea was inapplicable.
[6] Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, this Court on May 23, 2013 while issuing notice
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.11 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[3]
CWP Nos.11276 and 16223 of 2013.
to the respondents, directed the State authorities to release the due amount though subject to the final order in this petition.
[11] Having regard to the fact that the State Government has fairly resisted the claim of the petitioners, though it has finally been upheld in their favour, we are of the considered view that no amount of interest is payable to them. We thus decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
[SURYA KANT]
July 13, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.11 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order directing the release of ex-gratia amount despite the widow's earlier appointment under the State Government Policy.
Whether the claim for interest by the petitioners should be upheld.
Whether the induction of the deceased employee to Indian Forest Service creates a legal impediment to the release of ex-gratia amount.
State of Haryana
Saroj Panwar
Union of India
Surya Kant
P.B.Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
