VERMA, J. - (1.) HERE is a case of widow whose husband Kajod Ram had died after superannuation on 23. 3. 1995. The order of superannuation is attached as Annexure-1. The deceased employee was not granted the benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits during his life time. He had been reminding the department but no action was taken. He could not enjoy the retiral benefits in his life time and had died on 27. 3. 1997.
(2.) THE petitioner widow continued the efforts of obtaining the pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits by making continuous representations and reminders. She was running from pillar to post. None was prepared to pay any heed to her requests. It is stated that even her husband after retirement had become sick and because of paucity of funds he could not even be treated properly and ultimately died in the absence of proper medical treatment, leaving behind a minor son of 14 years and a daughter of 17 years. THE burden of bringing up the minor children was left on the shoulders of the widow. Even though the widow was asked to submit the death certificate and also the photographs which were duly submitted, but still the respondents refused to grant pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner with the result a legal notice was issued vide Annexure-4. She was compelled to knock the doors of this court with the prayer to release the retiral benefits of her deceased husband along with interest when her repeated entities did bring any result. Reply has been filed. In the reply it is now stated that the GPF and the amount of state insurance and leave encashment had since been released, but is stated that the pension matter could not be decided by the State Government because of the reason that there were certain articles due from the husband of the petitioner and at the time of retirement; those were not handed over to the department and as such a decision has been taken on 10. 12. 1997 vide Annexure R/2 to deduct an amount of Rs. 1,05,500/- from retiral benefits. Apart from above, there was another amount of Rs. 3,712/- due against the husband of the petitioner under the head of `vehicle loan' and ultimately the pension case was prepared on 11. 12. 1997 which was sent to the Pension Department on 1. 1. 1998. The Pension Department had raised certain objections in regard to certain period of service from 23. 7. 1991 to 6. 9. 1971. The decision was taken after about three years of such objection and ultimately on 17. 2. 2001 the period of suspension of a few months had been regularaised for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the enquiry was also closed vide Annexure R/3. The order was made on 17. 2. 2001 for deduction of an amount of Rs. 1,05,500/- as cost of certain items which according to the respondents were not deposited at the time of superannuation and another amount of Rs. 3,712/- which was due because of the vehicle loan vide Annexure R/4. It is further submitted that the respondents have now completed all the formalities and, therefore, steps were taken to release the pension and ultimately it has now been released after deducting the above-said amount. Counsel for the petitioner states that even though Pension Payment Order has now been sanctioned, but the action of the respondents to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,05,500/- either from the gratuity or from pension is wholly illegal, unwarranted and unjustified. It is the submission that the husband of the petitioner was superannuated in the year 1995. It is presumed that at the time of relieving him, taking over and handing over must have been done. The employee died in the year 1997 and it was only after the death of the employee that some order of recovery has been passed which if true could have only been passed during the life time of the deceased employee. The so called order of recovery without any enquiry, facts of which only could be clarified or explained by the deceased employee, is neither warranted nor justified and was illegal on the face of it and even otherwise there is no explanation that if the action which now been taken in the year 2000, why the same could not have been taken and decided when her husband was alive or in any case of at all the said amount was to be deducted from the gratuity only, in that situation, why the pension was not paid immediately or within reasonable time. Even the objections raised by the Pension Department is said to have been removed by the concerned Department after three years and, therefore, she is entitled to interest. It is further submitted that the pension is being paid after six years when her husband had died in waiting for the pensionary benefits; when her husband could not get her treatment because of paucity of funds; when the widow was begging and running from pillar to post for the little amount, the education of the children was badly effected; Of course there is no answer to such an apathy by the State in the written statement. Record was called for. It seems that the department had only moved for determining the retiral benefits when repeated reminders were sent by the widow and it was only on 18. 11. 1997 i. e. after the death of the employee when some enquiry was made about the material which is said to be due and price of which was assessed.
(3.) IN my opinion, any enquiry held for the purpose of recovering the cost of the material which is said to have not been deposited at the time of retirement by the deceased employee has no meaning, if held at the back of the employee, and as such no amount could be deducted from any of the retiral benefits. Any inquiry made for assessment of loss against a dead person can not bind the legal heirs of such person if no such inquiry was made after giving due opportunity to such person when he was alive. IN the present case the deceased official was not associated with any inquiry in his life time. This court in the case of L. D. Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), has granted 18% interest on the retiral benefits giving two months margine time for preparation of payment of the retiral benefits following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U. P. & Ors. (2) and, therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the arrears of retiral benefits. For the above-said reasons and discussions, the writ petition is to be allowed by issuing a writ of mandamus to the concerned respondent to pay the interest @ 18% p. a. on the delayed payment of retiral benefits from becoming due till payment. The amount of Rs. 1,05,500/- shall also be refunded back to the widow with interest thereon as no such amount could be deducted from the gratuity until and unless it was so established by an enquiry during the life time of deceased employee. The widow petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of this writ petition as well for the unnecessary delay in granting the retiral benefits. The costs are assessed as Rs. 5,000/ -. However, Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is at liberty to fix the liability for such a delay and may recover the amount of interest as well the cost from the officers who are responsible for such delayed payment of pension. It does without saying that the widow shall be entitled to pension as calculated from the due date upto the date of the death of her husband which was payable to him and thereafter the family pension as per rule along with interest and cost as aforesaid. The arrears of retiral benefits shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy. ;