AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No.15523 of 2017)
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, in case the limitation is computed from the date on which the application for correction of the impugned judgment was disposed of, there is no delay in filing the present special appeal, as the impugned judgment was passed on 09.05.2017, which was corrected on the application of the respondent-writ petitioner on 07.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, in the aforesaid, fairly does not oppose the delay condonation application.
For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed, and the delay in filing the present special appeal is, hereby, condoned.
Special Appeal No.1011 of 2017
The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 09.05.2017, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1359 of 2016, which was corrected on 07.10.2017.
Brief background of the relevant facts may be noted. The respondent’s husband retired from the services of the appellants in the year 1965. He died in the year 1998. During the thirty-three years period, after his retirement, neither he was granted, nor he ever claimed pension. After the husband of the respondent died, the respondent-writ petition started staking a claim for family pension. The claim for family pension was denied and, consequently, she filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No.97 of 2010. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.07.2013, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the respondent-writ petitioner in approaching the Court. She preferred special appeal being Special Appeal No.322 of 2013, which too was dismissed on 27.11.2013. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench shows that the stand of the appellants that the respondent’s husband had not served even for fifteen years, let alone twenty years, was taken into account. The order notes that the respondent’s husband had served only for 12 years 9 months and 17 days, which was reckoned as 13 years in accordance with the CCS Rules and, accordingly, in terms of the CCS Rules, as were prevalent in the year 1965 when the husband of the respondent retired, he was not entitled to any pension. The Division Bench took note of the fact that the respondent’s husband, during the period of 33 years (wrongly typed as 23 years), after his retirement until his death, did not seek any pension, obviously, as he knew that he was not entitled to any such pension. The Division Bench, therefore, dismissed the special appeal, not only on the ground of delay and laches, but also on merits, while holding that since the respondent’s husband was not entitled to pension, she was not entitled to family pension. The respondent then preferred Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No(s).6139 of 2015 before the Supreme Court. The same was disposed of on 06.04.2015 upon the respondent-writ petition making a statement that she would prefer a representation. The authority was directed to consider the representation within one month of it being made. It appears that the appellants considered the representation and, despite the fact that the respondent’s husband had not rendered the requisite pensionable service, granted family pension to the respondent.
The aforesaid grant of family pension to the respondent emboldened her, and now she has preferred the writ petition, in question, wherein the impugned judgment had been passed. She claimed interest on the arrears of family pension. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said claim by directing the appellants to pay interest on the delayed payment of family pension to the respondent-writ petition @9% per annum.
We have heard the learned counsels.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the claim for interest could not have been made, as the grant of family pension was an act of sympathy without any entitlement, and that being the position, the respondent had no vested right to claim interest, since the same was not granted by the appellants on their own.
On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that family pension was sanctioned to the respondent not as a matter of sympathy or compassion, but on account of her entitlement.
Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the light of the findings written by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.322 of 2013, which have not been set-aside by the Supreme Court. It cannot be accepted that the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to family pension as a matter of right. It is clear that she was granted family pension, despite the fact that her late husband had not rendered the requisite pensionable service. It is, therefore, clear that the family pension granted to the respondent-writ petition was an act of sympathy, and compassion. Consequently, there was no vested right in the respondent to claim interest on the arrears of the family pension sanctioned in her favour.
For the aforesaid reason, we set-aside the impugned order, and also dismiss the writ petition.
The special appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.