IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Kalachand Ghatak and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 21887 of 2022
Decided On : 21-08-2023
PENSIONARY/RETIRAL BENEFITS - CONTINUANCE OF SERVICE - SECTION 106 & 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1982 - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADVERSE INFERENCE - ABSENCE OF RECORDS - PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONTINUANCE - ENTITLEMENT TO PENSIONARY/RETIRAL BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, heirs of Late Sachipati Ghatak, an ambulance driver at Katwa Sub-Divisional Hospital, sought disbursal of pensionary/retiral benefits and compassionate appointment on the ground that their father died in harness in 1981. However, the respondent-Authorities claimed that there were no records to substantiate his service after 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners could not produce any document to substantiate their claim, but the respondent-Authorities also failed to produce any document indicating that Late Sachipati was ever suspended, retrenched, or retired from service. The court relied on a communication from the Director of Health Services in 1984 and a letter from the Joint Director of Health Services in 2015, both of which stated that Late Sachipati died in harness.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pensionary/retiral benefits on the demise of their father, Late Sachipati Ghatak, who allegedly died in harness as an employee of the Katwa Sub-Divisional Hospital. 2. Whether the burden of proof lies on the petitioners to establish the continuance of Late Sachipati's service or on the respondent-Authorities to prove its termination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the employer, having special knowledge, to produce documents regarding an employee's service, and in the absence of such documents, adverse inference may be drawn against the employer. (Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1982) 2. The court also held that it is presumed that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence. (Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1982) 3. Applying these principles, the court presumed that Late Sachipati's service continued till his demise in 1981, since the respondent-Authorities failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent-Authorities to disburse the entire retiral/pensionary benefits of Late Sachipati Ghatak, calculating such benefits by applying the appropriate scales for the entire period till his demise. The court also directed the respondent-Authorities to consider whether either of the petitioners is entitled to family pension.
JUDGMENT :
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :
1. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of Late Sachipati Ghatak. The petitioner no.1 is the son and the petitioner no.2 is the daughter of the said deceased. Late Sachipati died on December 28, 1981. It is alleged that during his lifetime, the said deceased was an employee, being an ambulance driver of the Katwa Sub-Divisional Hospital and had died in harness, leaving behind his wife and children. The wife of Late Sachipati also met her demise subsequently, leaving the petitioners as her only heirs.
2. In the year 1983, the petitioners’ mother made an application to the competent authority seeking employment of her son, the petitioner no.1, on compassionate ground. The Sub-Divisional Medical Officer, Katwa, forwarded the application to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Burdwan. Thereafter, the matter went before several forums and ultimately, pursuant to a direction of a Division Bench of this Court, was remanded to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which directed the service book of the deceased to be reconstructed. Ultimately, however, the matter went up to the Lokayukta, West Bengal before whom it was disclosed by the respondent-Authorities that nothing had been produced by the petitioners to indicate the continuance of service of Late Sachipati after the year 1965, nor was any information available in such regard in any of the relevant offices where he had worked according to the petitioners.
3. Being thus aggrieved and seeking disbursal of the pensionary/retiral benefits available to the said ex-employee, including compassionate appointment, and interest on such amount, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioners, it is evident that the first such application, for compassionate appointment on the demise of Late Sachipati on December 28, 1981, was made in the year 1983.
5. The matter was taken up by the concerned authorities. In a communication dated August 16, 1983 by the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer, Katwa SD Hospital to the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), Burdwan, it was informed that Late Sachipati Ghatak had worked in the said hospital up to May 18, 1965 as per the records available in the office and was paid salary up to that date, when he was on deputation at the Asansol LM Hospital. However, no other records were available in the office.
6. The matter went before different forums over the next several years, but nothing could be found from the records of the respondent- Authorities to substantiate the continuance of service of Late Sachipati after May 18, 1965. At the same time, no document has been produced by the respondent-Authorities to indicate that Late Sachipati was ever suspended, retrenched or retired from service.
7. Unfortunately, the petitioners also could not produce any document whatsoever to substantiate their claim that Late Sachipati died in harness in December, 1981.
8. Initially, the endeavour on the part of the mother (since deceased) of the petitioners was to seek compassionate appointment of her son, the petitioner no.1.
9. To such end, the CMOH, Burdwan wrote to the Director of Health Services in the year 1984, forwarding for favour and for taking necessary action such request for compassionate appointment, wherein it was mentioned that Late Sachipati Ghatak was an ambulance driver.
10. The same was acted upon and the authorities requested comments on several scores. One of the queries in such communication dated August 2, 1984, annexed at page 18 of the writ petition, was whether the deceased Late Sachipati Ghatak, ex-ambulance driver, Katwa SD Hospital, died in harness. The PA to the Director, Health Service replied to such query of the CMOH, Burdwan, in the positive. Thus, as on August 2, 1984, it is clear from the stand taken by the Director of Health Services that Late Sachipati, an ex-ambulance driver of the Katwa SD Hospital, had died in harness.
11.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to produce documents regarding an employee's service, and in the absence of such documents, adverse inference may be drawn against the employer. (Section 106 ....
Failure to comply with court orders results in contempt, necessitating adherence to statutory obligations regarding pension benefits.
The court affirmed that benefits must be granted based on official records of the deceased employee, rejecting arbitrary denial based on unverified claims.
A widow is entitled to family pension under Kerala Service Rules despite delays in application, provided she has not remarried.
A missing person for over seven years can be presumed dead, entitling legal heirs to benefits under applicable schemes.
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after a lapse of time, as the delay in making a claim dilutes the case of immediate financial penury and negates the entitlement for appointment on compass....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.