Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 2225
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Premvati Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 13489 of 2017
Decided On : 13-09-2021
Amin Ali, Advocate
Claims for salary and pension benefits must be substantiated with adequate documentation and made within a reasonable time frame; otherwise, they may be dismissed as lacking merit.
Headnote:
[Writ Petition] - [Salary and Pension Claims] - [The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking salary and pension benefits for the period of suspension of her late husband, emphasizing that the claims were made too late and lacked sufficient documentation to support the request.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction for the payment of her late husband Chiranji Lal's salary during his suspension and a revised pension considering the entire service period, including the suspension period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation to support her claims and noted that the late Chiranji Lal had not contested his pension or suspension during his lifetime.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and pension benefits for the period of suspension of her late husband, and whether the request is valid after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claims made by the petitioner were not substantiated by sufficient evidence and were made too late, constituting a fishing inquiry for documents.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of substance and supporting documentation.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the entire due amount of salary of her husband Late Chiranji Lal for the period during which he remained under suspension and was not paid salary with interest, determine the pension of Late Chiranji Lal by considering the entire service period including the period of suspension and pay revised pension to the petitioner.
2. A look at the documents annexed with the petition indicates that the petitioner’s husband Chiranji Lal retired on 31.12.2001, which date is reflected from the PPO. The date of death of petitioner’s husband is not reflected.
3. From Annexure-2 wherein also no date is indicated, the petitioner’s son sought service book of his father. Thereafter, a notice dated 27.07.2017 was given by the counsel and petition has been filed seeking the above reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner is not in possession of any material for claiming the reliefs as indicated and therefore, the respondents be directed to supply the material to the petitioner as sought.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Apparently, Late Chiranji Lal, petitioner’s husband retired on 31.12.2001 and survived thereafter and continued to get the pension under the PPO issued to him, did not question the same at any stage. However, attempts are now being made after 20 years seeking to question the purported suspension of the petitioner’s husband, particulars whereof are not available and petition has been filed seeking material in this regard, the attempt on part of the petitioner is only to make a fishing inquiry for getting certain documents, which cannot be permitted.
7. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
