HC admonishes ‘systemic indifference’, directs Haryana Principal Secy (Electricity) to verify widow’s claim, release dues within 2 months

Coming down heavily on “systemic indifference” that forced an 80-year-old destitute widow to struggle for nearly five decades for her late husband’s retirement dues, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the senior bureaucracy to intervene.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has directed Principal Secretary/Administrative In-charge, Haryana Electricity Department, to “personally examine the veracity of the petitioner’s claims within a period of two months and to ensure that all lawful benefits due to the petitioner are released forthwith.”

The direction came as the Bench sharply admonished the prolonged inaction, holding that the case presented “a disheartening and distressing picture of administrative apathy” and stressed that relief to the weakest was not charity but a constitutional mandate.

Justice Brar asserted that “merely exchanged correspondence without granting any substantive relief.” that despite an earlier direction in 2005 to decide the widow’s representation, the departments The court opened its analysis by noting:

“In the present case, the petitioner, an illiterate and destitute widow, has been compelled to run from pillar to post for nearly five decades and ultimately approach this court in her struggle to secure the grant of family pension and other retirement benefits of her late husband.”

Referring to the human cost of the neglect, Justice Brar asserted that the case painted a disheartening and distressing picture of administrative apathy compounded by the petitioner’s advanced age, deteriorating health, and lack of effective legal assistance. “An aged widow, already burdened by grief and financial hardship, is being made to suffer further because of systemic indifference and procedural neglect.”

The court added that such situations exposed a grim reality “that those most in need of justice often find themselves most helpless in securing it.” Justice Brar also observed that communication or decision regarding her claim was never conveyed to the widow. “What is particularly distressing is that, throughout her prolonged ordeal, the poor widow was kept completely uninformed about any decision regarding her claim.”

Critical of the power utility’s attitude, Justice Brar observed that reply under the RTI Act dated October 19, 2022, stated that the information could not be supplied as the matter was “very old” and no record was available. The Bench asserted this added to her suffering: “Adding to her torment, the DHBVNL stated that the information sought could not be furnished as the matter was ‘very old’ and no record was available with the office.”

The Bench further pointed out that the respondents complicated matters by taking an entirely new stand in their written reply by asserting that the petitioner’s late husband was not covered under the GPF/Pension scheme of the Board: “The respondents, in their written statement, brought a completely new twist to the factual matrix by asserting that the petitioner’s deceased husband was not covered under the GPF/Pension Scheme of the Board.”

Turning to the broader constitutional principles, Justice Brar asserted the constitutional courts “bear a sacred obligation to uphold fundamental rights and to ensure that the constitutional vision extends its reach to the most vulnerable sections of society.”

The court reiterated that ensuring relief to the oppressed was not magnanimity but a constitutional responsibility. “Extending relief to a voiceless 80-year-old widow and securing her rights is thus not a matter of judicial discretion or benevolence, rather it is a constitutional imperative anchored in the Preamble and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.”