Devi Singh (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. vs Hbvnl And Ors.

Jaspal Singh, J

By virtue of instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits along with interest from the date of retirement i.e. 31.03.2014 till actual payment.

During the course of arguments, it has emerged that petitioner was retired on 31.03.2014 and was served with charge-sheet dated 18.06.2012 prior

to his date of retirement but that charge-sheet was withdrawn on 12.06.2014. However, subsequent thereto, a fresh charge-sheet was issued on

11.09.2014 (P-3).

It is an admitted fact that petitioner-Devi Singh was taken away by the nature on 23.11.2016 i.e. during the pendency of instant petition and

accordingly, his legal heirs were allowed to be impleaded. Even, after the demise of Devi Singh, proceedings in the aforesaid charge-sheet are being

continued, which is absolutely against the rules as well as settled canons of law. It is well settled proposition of law that no departmental inquiry can be

initiated or continued after the demise of an employee or a retiree. To buttress this observation, we can have the reference of Division Bench

judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in “Principal Secretary to Govt. Agriculture and Co-op Depot., Govt. of A.P. vs. Ahmed

Begumâ€, 2002(3) SCT 138 as well as that of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in caseâ €œR. Meshwar Manjhi v. Management of Sangaramgarh

Collieryâ€​, 1994(1) SCT 500. Thus, if at all the proceedings are pending or continued against the original petitioner, those stood culminated on the date

of his demise and it would be deemed that nothing adverse is there against him. Even after the demise of Devi Singh on 23.11.2016 till date, no efforts

were made by the respondents for the release/disbursal of retiral benefits to his legal heirs. Under the Provision of Civil Service Rules, at the most, the

respondents could have withheld gratuity payable to Devi Singh. On account of pendency of above referred charge sheet, which stood abated on

23.11.2016 on account of his death, the respondents were obliged to make the payment of other retiral benefits within a reasonable period of three

months from the date of his retirement.

During the course of arguments, it has also emerged that some of the benefits have already been paid to petitioner-Devi Singh or his legal heirs but

some benefits are still due and payable to them. Since, the payment of various dues except gratuity which could have been withheld on account of

pendency of charge-sheet, petitioner has become entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment after the expiry of three months from the

date of retirement of Devi Singh (since deceased) till actual payment of the retiral dues and after three months of the demise of Devi Singh.

The respondents are directed to calculate and pay the benefits which have not so far been paid within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order . As far as gratuity is concerned that would also be payable after three months of the demise of petitioner i.e.

23.11.2016, if the same has not been paid till date, it would also carry interest @ 9% per annum as has been referred to above.

However, if petitioner still feels aggrieved against any order passed by the aforesaid authority, she shall be at liberty to have recourse to the other

remedies available under law as well as to approach this Court.