Rattan Lal Sharma vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief(s):

" That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to inquire into the complaint of the petitioner dated 28.11.2020 (Annexure P­3) within a time bound manner and take strict action as warranted under the law against the guilty persons.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the salary, D.A. & other service benefits received by Late Shri Daya Ram for excessive 12 years i.e. 1990 to 30.6.2002 beyond his entitlement, may kindly be ordered to be recovered from the legal heirs of late Shri Daya Ram alongwith upto date interest and be remitted to Government Treasury."

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as a Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Batal, in the year 2020. While going through the records of the death and birth register of the Gram Panchayat, it transpired that the date of birth of late Daya Ram, son of Shri Balak Ram, R/o village and P.O. Batal, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, HP was 1930. This raised suspicion in the mind of the petitioner because said Daya Ram was employed under the respondents and continued to serve till his superannuation, i.e. on 30.6.2002, whereas he should have retired 12 years earlier, i.e. in the year 1990.

The petitioner thereafter sought information regarding the date of birth entered in the service records, from the Electricity Board where deceased Daya Ram was employed and in terms of the information supplied, the date of birth mentioned in the records of 3rd respondent was 12.6.1942, whereas in the Panchayat record, as stated above, the date of birth was recorded as 1930. The petitioner accordingly submitted a complaint dated 28.11.2020 (Annexure P­3) to the 3rd respondent, bringing to its notice all the aforesaid facts. Since no action was taken on the basis of said complaint, therefore, the instant petition.

The respondents have contested the petition, wherein various preliminary objections have been taken like locus­standi, non­infringement of right etc. On merits, it has been averred that deceased Daya Ram had joined services of replying respondents as Peon, as back as on 1.4.1972 and at that time his date of birth recorded in the incumbency register was 12.6.1942 and on the basis of the record, said Daya Ram continued to serve the respondents and retired as Daftri on 30.6.2002. After retirement on 30.6.2002, said Daya Ram unfortunately expired on 26.2.2016. After the death of deceased Daya Ram, his family is only getting family pension. It is further averred that replying respondents cannot take any action against deceased Daya Ram for cheating or fraud, as he has already died, and also because when he had been paid salary/allowances, in lieu of the services, which he rendered upto 30.6.2002.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the petitioner, for some strange reasons, has not impleaded the legal heirs of deceased Daya Ram, which includes his wife Smt. Jai Dei and son Shri Narender, as party respondents, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone for non­joinder of necessary parties.

Apart from above, it will be relevant to take note of Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which clearly bars an action, for an event, that has taken place more than 4 years prior to the complaint.

The admitted case of the parties is that deceased Daya Ram retired on 30.6.2002 and thereafter, unfortunately died on 26.2.2016, whereas the complaint was filed by the petitioner only on 28.11.2020 and the instant petition was filed on 2.7.2021. Consequently, the petition is clearly barred by delay and latches, apart from non­joinder of necessary parties.

In view of above, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

Parties to bear their own costs.