HC slams ‘callous’ dept for withdrawing widow’s pension over missing 40-year-old duty record

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) for its callous and unjustifiable stand in withdrawing family pension of a widow on the ground that she failed to produce her husband’s 40-year-old duty record, despite the fact that the department itself was the only official custodian of such records.

“It is curious as to how the respondent-department can place the burden on the petitioner to prove that her husband sustained injuries while on duty. The absurdity of it is not just rooted in the fact that the document sought from the petitioner is about 40 years old but also, notably, that the respondent-department, admittedly, is not in possession of the attendance record, in spite of being the primary and the only official custodian of all departmental records,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, while setting aside the 2018 order withdrawing the pension.

The court noted that the petitioner’s husband suffered 90 per cent disability following an electric accident in 1980, leading to termination of his services in 1983 without pension. He died in 1988. Pensionary benefits were granted to the widow in 2014, but were withdrawn by a successor officer in 2018.

Justice Brar took note of the department’s claim that the official records were “unavailable and untraceable as they were ruined during the flood that occurred in Shahbad in 1997”. But the court held that the liability could not be shifted on the petitioner.

Elaborating, the bench asserted that they could not be expected to produce the duty record, especially after the employee’s death, while there was a reasonable expectation for the respondent-department to possess the same as all service records were in its exclusive custody.

“The callousness displayed by the respondent-department is inherently unjustifiable and does not deserve any condonation.”

Citing the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the bench asserted a bare perusal of the provisions made it abundantly clear that the law explicitly prohibited the approach adopted by the respondent-department. Its provisions forbade discrimination against an employee acquiring a disability during service.

“It is regrettable that the respondent-department has chosen to equate disability sustained by the husband of the petitioner in an accident, with inefficiency as this perspective is not only expressly illegal but also terribly apathetic. Further, the provisions of the Act of 1955 possess the full force of law and are not merely recommendatory or directory,” Justice Brar asserted.

The bench added hyper-technical and insensitive approach by the respondent-department was contrary to not only applicable rules but also the principles of equity. Justice Brar observed that “for reasons unbeknownst to this court”, an officer chose to review and revise the earlier order granting the benefits after due consideration.

Allowing the petition, the court directed the department to restore and release pensionary benefits with arrears and 7.5 per cent interest from January 1, 2019, till the date of payment.