The liability to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner and other family members was resolved by the judgment in Smt. Rosy Jain (supra) and the court directed the Pension Trust to release the dues of the petitioner along with interest within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, the second wife and now surviving widow of late Shri Madan Lal, who was employed as Assistant Line-Man with Delhi Vidyut Board (`DVB') and expired on 01.08.2001 while in service.

2. The factual matrix, shorn of unnecessary details is that Petitioner's husband died in harness on 01.08.2001 as an employee of DVB, which was unbundled on 01.07.2002 after Notification of the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 on 20.11.2001. Petitioner is the second wife of late Madan Lal and after his death, she filed a petition on 12.08.2004 before the Trial Court for grant of Succession Certificate on her behalf and all sons and daughters of Madan Lal including the children from the first wife being Petition No.553/2004. The Trial Court granted the Succession Certificate in favour of the Petitioner and 11 other legal heirs of Madan Lal vide judgment dated 20.12.2012, subject to payment of court fee and furnishing of indemnity bond with one surety.

3. The issue raised in the present petition is essentially for grant of family pension, death gratuity and arrears of pension with interest w.e.f. 22.11.2004 to the legal heirs of late Madan Lal. From a reading of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, the position that emerges is that there is no dispute with regard to the succession of late Madan Lal and the only conflict is as to who would bear the liability of the retiral benefits between Respondent No.1/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., the DISCOM or Delhi Vidyut Board Employees' Terminal Benefit Fund, the Pension Trust.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite passage of nearly two decades from the death of Madan Lal, retiral benefits have not been released to his legal heirs. The outstanding dues are on account of Family Pension @ Rs.2,238/- per month enhanced upto 01.08.2008, Ordinary Pension w.e.f. 02.08.2008 @ Rs.13,430/- per month, Pension Arrears upto 31.10.2004 amounting to Rs.1,36,012/-, Death Gratuity amounting to Rs.77,868/- and GPF amounting to Rs.37,574/-.

5. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Pension Trust submits that it is the liability of the DISCOM/Respondent No.1 to clear the outstanding payments due to the Petitioner as her husband had expired prior to the unbundling of DVB, while Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., strenuously contends that the liability rests entirely on the Pension Trust and this dispute now stands resolved by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tata Power Delhi Distribution Power Limited v. Smt. Rosy Jain and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1650, read with North Delhi Power Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 919.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Smt. Rosy Jain (supra), and it is no longer open to Respondent No.2/Pension Trust to disown the liability to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner as this conflict as to whether the employer i.e. the DISCOMS or the Pension Trust is liable, has been resolved and decided.

7. In my view, counsel for the Petitioner is correct in his submission that the controversy of release of retiral/terminal benefits of the Petitioner and other family members as detailed in the Succession Certificate would be covered by the observations of the Division Bench in Smt. Rosy Jain (supra). Relevant passages of the judgment are as follows:

"15. Learned counsel for the GNCTD and the Pension Trust urged that the only three contingencies visualized by the rules governing the Pension Trust where terminal benefits and pay outs were to be made are: superannuation of the employee; death of the employee and permanent incapacitation of the employee. In the second case, upon death, the terminal benefits would be p