High Court Orders Compensation and Interest to Widow for Delayed Pension Payment

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of Sujata Mehta, a widow who was denied her rightful family pension for over 12 years. The court directed the respondents, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) and Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL), to pay interest on the delayed pension arrears and ordered exemplary costs to be paid to the petitioner.

Case Background

Sujata Mehta, whose husband served as Reader-cum-Circle Superintendent in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), was left without her family pension following his death on May 19, 2008. Despite multiple applications to the concerned authorities, she was not granted her pension until July 24, 2020, after enduring a delay of over a decade.

The delay in processing the pension occurred due to the bifurcation of HSEB into separate entities under the Haryana Electricity Act, 1997, following which Sujata Mehta’s application was misdirected between different organizations. Initially, her application was filed with DHBVN, which incorrectly directed her to approach HVPNL instead of forwarding the application themselves.

Court’s Observations

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, while delivering the judgment, expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of the authorities. The court observed that Sujata Mehta, being a widow, should not have been burdened with navigating the bureaucratic complications resulting from the restructuring of the electricity board. The court described the respondents’ behavior as “insensitive” and “highly deprecated,” further emphasizing that pension is not a charity but a statutory and constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment

The High Court granted the following reliefs to the petitioner:

1. Interest on Delayed Pension: The court ordered 6% simple interest on the arrears of family pension from the date of her husband’s death (May 19, 2008) to the actual date of disbursement (July 31, 2020). If the amount is not paid within three months, the interest rate will rise to 9%.
2. Exemplary Costs: Given the prolonged delay and the distress caused, the court imposed exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000, to be equally shared by DHBVN and HVPNL. The amount is to be paid to Sujata Mehta within three months.

Legal Precedent

The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, where it was established that the right to pension is a valuable right vested in government employees and their families. The High Court reaffirmed that family pension is not a matter of discretion but a legal entitlement.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as a reminder to government authorities about their responsibility towards the welfare of employees and their families. The court made it clear that the onus of ensuring pension disbursement lies with the relevant bodies, not with the beneficiaries. The case highlights the plight of a widow who was forced to fight for her legal rights for over 12 years, and the court’s decision aims to deliver long-overdue justice.

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment, CWP-18682-2022 (O&M), Sujata Mehta vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others.