Laxmi Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

The present application has b e en filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the applicant-Mukesh Kumar, a s party-respo n dent No.8 in the writ petition.

¶19

r Learned counsel for the petitioner does not oppose the pray e made in th e application and submits that h e has no objection to the prese n t application being allowed.

¶20

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

2

¶22

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶23

In view of the above, the pr e sent application is allowed a n d Sh. Mukes h Kumar, is ordered to be added as respondent No.8 and amend e d memo of p a rties is taken on record.

¶24

Registry to place the same at t h e appropriate place.

¶25

Main

¶26

The present petition has been f iled under Article 226/227 of t h e Constitutio n of India seeking a direction to the Respondents to forthwi t h grant to th e petitioner all pensionary ben e fits along with interest from t h e date of her h usband’s death, i.e., 05.01.197 4 .

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that t h e factual mat r ix of the case, which spans nea r ly five decades, reveals a saga o f administrat i ve apathy and a persistent s truggle for rightful dues. T h e petitioner’s husband, Late Maha Singh, w a s appointed as Lineman-II in t h e Electricity D epartment on 24.06.1955 and s erved in the erstwhile Electrici t y Departmen t of the Government of Haryan a . On 05.01.1974, the husband o f the petitio n er died in harness while w o rking as a Sub-Station Offic e r (S.S.O.) u n der the Executive Enginee r (P) Division, Haryana Sta t e Electricity B oard (HSEB), Ballabgarh.

¶28

Subsequently, the petitioner, a n illiterate lady, received an e x - gratia pay m ent of Rs. 6,026/-. Learned co u nsel argues that all other retir a l benefits, in c luding Family Pension, Gratui t y, and Leave Salary, were nev e r

¶29

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

3

¶31

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶32

paid to th e petitioner despite making n umerous representations to t h e authorities c oncerned. Respondent No. 7 a d dressed a letter to the Executi v e Engineer, B allabgarh, seeking particulars of the deceased employee vi d e communic a tion dated 01.09.1987. In respo n se, the Executive Engineer, vi d e letter date d 19.09.1989, wrote to the Sup e rintending Engineer, OP Circl e , Faridabad, requesting release of the retira l benefits. It was mentioned th a t the service book and relevant records had b een sent to higher authorities o n 28.12.1988 and that the deceased had been a llotted GPF Account No. 1605 8 , from whic h GPF deductions were regularly made.

¶33

Ultimately, the petitioner fil e d CWP-2122-2005, which w a s disposed o f on 08.02.2005 with a direction t o the respondents to consider t h e petitioner’s representation by passing a s peaking order (Annexure P-3). Learned co u nsel submits that despite the p etitioner repeatedly approachi n g the authori t ies to trace the service record o f her late husband for release o f pensionary benefits, the matter was kept pending, with the departmen t s merely exc h anging correspondence withou t granting any substantive relief.

¶34

Thereafter, the petitioner re c eived a copy of a letter dat e d 21.09.2006 (Annexure P-10) issued by the XEN (OP) Division, Ballabga r h to the Co m missioner, Provident Fund, Faridabad, intimating that t h e petitioner’s late husband had been a memb e r of the EPF since 1962 and h a d opted for p e nsion in the year 1971, with a r equest to decide the pension ca s e

¶35

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

4

¶37

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶38

at the ear l iest. The relevant portion of the letter dated 21.09.2006 i s reproduced as under:

¶39

“ In c ontinuation to this office Me m o No. 2983 dated 19.9.89, it i s agai n intimated that Late. Sh. Mah a Singh SSO was the member o f EPF since 1962, and he has also op te d the FPF Scheme 1971 and t h e dedu c tion of FPF was continuous ly deducted from his salary till 5.1.1 9 74.

¶40

Now the widow of late Sh. Maha S i ngh visities this office time a n d agai n and reported that till date s he has not received any fami l y pens i on, where as this office has al r eady submitted all the requir e d docu m ents/information in your office.

¶41

It is t herefore again requested that t he case of family pension of la t e Sh. M aha Singh may be considered sympathy and decided at t h e earli e st under intimation to this offic e .”

¶42

The petitioner subsequently r e ceived a letter from responde n t No. 7 date d 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) c alling upon her to furnish copi e s of certain d ocuments, including document s submitted after the death of h e r husband, a s well as an attested photoco p y of her bank account and a n indemnity b ond. The petitioner promptly complied and submitted all t h e required documents.

¶43

In the year 2007, the petitio n er’s son separated from her a n d moved aw a y, leaving the aged and illitera t e petitioner without support. S h e became d e pendent on neighbors and later her married daughte r . Subsequen t ly, the petitioner suffered se r ious illness and even beca m e r paralytic i n the year 2015, which render e d her incapable of pursuing h e case. Upon legal advice, the petitioner file d applications under the RTI A c t

¶44

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

5

¶46

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶47

dated 14.0 9 .2022 (Annexure P-14, P-15 ) to the DHBVNL and EPF O seeking inf o rmation on the release of her p e nsion. The DHBVNL, in its R T I reply dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-16) st a ted that information could not b e supplied si n ce the matter is very old and n o record is available in the offic e . Left with n o alternative, the petitioner, w h o is now more than 80 years o f r age and li v ing in destitution, has appro a ched this Court once again f o redressal o f her grievances.

¶48

8. Per Contra, learned counsel f or the respondents submits th a t the retiral b enefits of the deceased were d u ly released to the petitioner. Th i s includes: a) Ex-gratia of Rs. 6,026/- ( A nnexure R-2/1, 19.08.1976); b ) Gratuity o f Rs. 6,219/- (Annexure R-2/ 2 , 05.10.1989); c) Leave Sala r y arrears of R s. 3,024/- and Rs. 366/; and a d ifference in pay of Rs. 1,062. 9 0 (04.02.197 5 ). A consolidated letter dated 05.04.1989 (Annexure R-2/3) w a s sent to the H SEB Secretary detailing all these payments.

¶49

9. Learned counsel further sub m its that the deceased, Late Ma h a Singh, was a member of the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Sche m e since 1962 and opted for the Family Pension Fund (FPF) in 1971 when i t was introd u ced. He was, therefore, not c overed under the GPF/Pensi o n Scheme of the Board. This fact was brou g ht to the notice of the petition e r vide letter d ated 23.03.1989 (Annexure R- 2 /4). A GPF account was inde e d opened (N o . 16058), and an amount of R s . 24/- was deducted in Februa r y 1969. However, upon the deceased’s own representation dated 24.02.19 7 2

¶50

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

6

¶52

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶53

(Annexure R -2/5) stating that he was alrea d y a member of the EPF schem e , further GP F deductions were stopped. T h us, his substantive membersh i p remained w ith the EPFO.

¶54

10. Moreover, learned counsel argues that the petitioner ’ s Provident F und claim was settled by the E P FO on 15.12.1987, as intimat e d to the depa r tment vide letter dated 12.09. 2 005 (Annexure R-2/7). The th e n r Superinten d ent/Estt. for the Chief Enginee r , HVPNL, Hisar, passed an ord e on 28.11.2005 (Annexure R-2/8) statin g that all dues payable to t h e petitioner had already been made.

¶55

11. I have heard the learned c o unsel for the parties and ha v e perused the record with their able assistanc e .

¶56

12. In the present case, the peti t ioner, an illiterate and destitu t e widow, has been compelled to run from pil l ar to post for nearly five decad e s and ultima t ely approach this Court in he r struggle to secure the grant o f family pen s ion and other retiral benefits of h er late husband. The petitioner ’ s earlier wri t petition was disposed of i n 2005 with a direction to t h e respondent s to decide her representation, y et the matter was kept pendi n g with the d e partments merely exchanging c orrespondence without granti n g any substa n tive relief. The case paints a dis h eartening and distressing pictu r e of adminis t rative apathy compounded b y the petitioner’s advanced ag e , deteriorati n g health, and lack of effective l egal assistance. An aged wido w , r already bu r dened by grief and financial hardship, is being made to suff e

¶57

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

7

¶59

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶60

further be c ause of systemic indifferenc e and procedural neglect. Su c h situations h ighlight the unfortunate reality t hat those most in need of justi c e often find t hemselves most helpless in sec u ring it. Left with no alternativ e , the petitio n er was compelled to approach t his Court once more, clinging t o the faint ho p e that her plea would finally b e heard.

¶61

13. What is particularly distre s sing is that, throughout h e r prolonged o rdeal, the poor widow was k e pt completely uninformed abo u t any decision regarding her claim. Adding t o her torment, the DHBVNL, i n n its RTI rep l y dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P -16), stated that the informati o sought cou l d not be furnished as the matt e r was “very old” and no reco r d was availa b le with the office. Further, t h e Respondents, in their writt e n statement, b rought a completely new twist to the factual matrix by asserti n g that the p etitioner’s deceased husband was not covered under t h e GPF/Pensi o n Scheme of the Board.

¶62

14. This Court is of the consid e red opinion that Constitution a l Courts bea r a sacred obligation to uphold f undamental rights and to ensu r e that the c o nstitutional vision extends it s reach to the most vulnerab l e sections o f society. Within this constit u tional scheme, the role of t h e judiciary i n safeguarding and providin g relief to the voiceless, t h e marginaliz e d, and those dwelling at the lowest rungs of the social a n d economic order assumes utmost importanc e .

¶63

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

8

¶65

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶66

15. The Preamble solemnly ensh r ines the ideals of justice, soci a l, economic, and political as the guidi n g promise to every citize n . Constitutio n al morality, therefore, demand s that institutions act in a mann e r that honou r s human dignity and equality. Social justice is not a peripher a l ideal but t h e very foundation of democrac y , and the judiciary stands as t h e vigilant cu s todian of this commitment. Wh e n individuals from marginaliz e d backgroun d s lack the resources or the v o ice to vindicate their rights, i t becomes t h e duty of the constitutional co u rts to ensure that those rights d o not remain merely theoretical or illusory . The principle of constitution a l compassio n , grounded in human dignity, e m pathy, and the upliftment of t h e r oppressed h as guided this approach. Exten d ing relief to a voiceless 80 ye a old widow and securing her rights is thus n ot a matter of judicial discreti o n or benevol e nce, rather it is a constituti o nal imperative anchored in t h e Preamble a n d Articles 14, 19, and 21 of t h e Constitution. Whenever Cour t s fail to prot e ct the weakest, the constitution a l promise stands diminished. B u t when they r ise to defend them, the transfo r mative spirit of the Constituti o n shines in it s truest form.

¶67

16. Curiously, all departmental c o mmunications annexed with t h e present wr i t petition indicate that the p e titioner is entitled to the reli e f claimed. M oreover, it is incomprehensibl e how the deceased could ha v e been allott e d a GPF Account Number i f he was not covered under t h e Board’s G P F/Pension Scheme. This Court i s further constrained to note th a t r the Respo n dents have consciously chosen to file only short replies rath e

¶68

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

9

¶70

CWP-1457 - 2023

¶71

than a para - wise reply to the writ petition, a nd the documents relied upon b y the petitioner have not been specifically controverted. It is also unclear w h y the Respo n dents failed to rely upon An n exure R-2/4 in the earlier wri t petition fil e d by the petitioner (CWP No. 2 1 22-2005).

¶72

17. In view of the above, the Prin c ipal Secretary or Administrati v e incharge, E lectricity department, Govern m ent of Haryana is directed t o personally e xamine the veracity of the peti t ioner’s claims within a period o f two month s from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and t o ensure tha t all lawful benefits due to the petitioner are released to h e r forthwith.

¶73

18. The present petition is dis p osed of accordingly. Pendi n g miscellane o us applications, if any, shall als o stand disposed of.

¶74

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶75

November 14, 2025 P.C Whether speakin g /reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reporta b le. : Yes/No

¶76

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Laxmi Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrit Kaur Bedi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shelly Devi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nasra Warsi Vs Punjab Waqf Board and Another

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Piyara Lal Pahuja Vs State of Haryana and Another

Subhash Chander Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others