NEWS

Himachal High Court slaps one lakh litigation cost on MD of HPDEC Ltd

 Himachal Pradesh High Court slapped the costs of Rs one lakh on the Managing Director of HP Development Electronics Corporation Ltd and payment of family pension to petitioner Davanti Negi widow of a former employee of the corporation with a six percent rate of interest.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi passed 15 paged judgment on October 18 in a Spl leave petition filed by the respondents against the single judge order of the court.

The bench dismissing the appeal filed by the MD of HPDEC and allowing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner said that upheld the single bench order with the modification.

Bench said that the petitioner is entitled to interest and costs of litigation and directed the Corporation to pay the family pension from the period of four weeks to the writ petitioner.

The court said that due and admissible family pension along with interest on delayed payment at the rate of six percent per annum should be paid to the widow of the former employee and dependents.

The court ordered to remit the pending due to the petitioner from the date of representation i.e. May 2014 till the date of actual payment.

The court further clarified that if any amount has to be refunded by the petitioner to the Corporation, then the same shall be adjusted from the sum due and payable by the  Corporation. On the amount, if any, to be refunded by the writ petitioners no interest should be demanded by the Corporation. 

Court said that respondent/appellant corporation would pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the writ petitioners within a  period of four weeks for its vexatious and contumacious conduct. 

The bench held that the amount of interest and costs be recovered from the  Officer(s)/Official(s) responsible for the same in the respondent/appellant’s Corporation. 

 Court after hearing both the parties said that the corporation moved in an appeal against the petitioner before the division bench and rejected the claim of family pension of the petitioner.

The Court said that the 15-page verdict that the corporation couldn’t place anything on the record before the bench regarding the deceased solicited option of employee or family pension.

The HC said that there is no merit in the first ground for rejection stated in the impugned order as a deceased employee couldn’t be blamed for the lapse’s right to claim pension on the part of the Corporation. 

Court finding the widow of the deceased employee worthy of family pension said that it would be appropriate to refer to Clause-2 of the Himachal  Pradesh Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 wherein it has been categorically provided that if any employee does not exercise his or her option within the specified period for whatsoever reason than he or she shall be deemed to have exercised option for the Scheme. 

The court categorically mentioned in the verdict that a Pension is not a bounty. Hence not only is it a recurring cause of action, but is also a continuous cause of action. The delay 

in paying the due and admissible pension in question is squarely attributable to the respondent and Corporation after having adopted the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme. In question way back in the year, 1999 have failed to give the benefit of the same to the petitioner.

It would be appropriate to refer to 1985 (1) SCC, 429 and 2001 (9) SCC, 687, wherein it has been categorically provided that pension should be paid within two months of retirement. 

Any delay in making payment for pension thereafter should be subject to interest payable to the concerned employee and legal heirs. Court said that from the facts of the present case, it is clearly evident that an application for a grant of family pension was made by writ petitioner post settlement of law in this regard.

The court found during the hearing that in the case petitioner Davanti Negi was subjected to protracted litigation the court said that the present case pertains to an individual, who falls within the period from 1.4.1999 till 2.12.2004, as the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner/respondent had died on 26.10.2022.

The further arguments of learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-corporation/writ respondent that posts repeal of H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme i.e. 2.12.2004, no amendment could be made in the service Regulation, as has been done in the case at hand in the year, 2019, is not legally sustainable. 

The court said that widows of former employees are entitled to family pension as the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension,  Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 is based or determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.

Could observed that it is shocking that legal representatives of the deceased employee had repeatedly been forced to approach the Court by the respondents by incurring huge expenditures to claim what they are legally entitled to be paid. 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *