The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for communication of acceptance of premature retirement and the employee's status until the date of actual retirement.

Smt. Pushap Lata, employed as a teacher with Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan in 1969, was diagnosed as a case of SCLERODERMA, in advance stage in 1987. She accordingly, sought pre-mature retirement.

2. Respondent Sangathan does not appear to have responded for about eight years. She however, expired on 7.11.1995, though in pain and suffering, because of non-release of her dues, complain the writ petitioner, who are the surviving members of her family. The petitioners submit that retrial benefits were sanctioned in 1996 after the death of Smt. Pushap Lata and an amount of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees Thirty thousand) initially sanctioned under Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, was later withdrawn on the ground that Insurance was payable only if the employee had died in harness. The Sangathan relied on an office order of 4.8.1995 by which Smt. Pushap lata, deceased, is shown to have retired w.e.f 17.07.1987.

3. The petitioners dispute the receipt of or knowledge of any such communication/order.

4. Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan did not produce any records either as to the receipt of this order by the appellants or a copy of this order before the writ Court.

5. The petitioners claimed release of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) on account of Deposit linked Insurance Scheme besides interest on retrial benefits w.e.f 1987 in their writ petition.

6. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by holding as under:--

"So she was declared unfit to perform her duties on 17.7.1987. It is admitted that she never attended duty thereafter until her death. The respondents had thus no option, but to retire her from the aforesaid date. Otherwise, she would be out of service being absent from July 1987 to November 1995 when she died because the period cannot be treated as leave as there is no provision for granting leave for such a long time. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the order retiring her with effect from 17.7.1987. They have instead accepted to retrial benefits calculated on this basis. On the contrary, one of the reliefs claimed is that interest on the retrial benefits may be directed to be paid from July 1987 to 1996 when the retrial benefits were released on the ground that pension and other retrial benefits were withheld for more than eight years. So the petitioners have accepted the fact that the deceased was rightly retired with effect from 17.7.1987. They have also accepted the retrial benefits without protest and drawn the amount.

If that be so, they are not entitled to Rs. 30,000/-Deposit Link Insurance Scheme because it is payable only to an employee who dies in harness. This is evident from the letter dated 27.03.1997 written on behalf of respondents which reads as under:--

"Kindly refer to your letter no. 117/PL/KVS/P/97 dated 24.02.1997 addressed to the Commissioner in connection with your request for sanctioning an amount of Rs. 30,000/-pertaining to DLIS in respect of your wife late Smt. Pushap lata. We wish to inform you that DLIS is payable only to an employee who dies in harness. Your wife was granted pre-mature retirement w.e.f 17.7.1987 (forenoon) on medical grounds vide office order dated 04.08.1995. Where an employee dies after the retirement, no DLIS is admissible to the nominee."

It is this letter which has been challenged by the petitioners, but until the date of retirement is challenged and it is held that she was in service up to the date of her death, contrary view is not possible. Sanction order also indicates that the amount is payable to the legal heirs of the deceased which also supports the plea. So far as claim for interest is concerned, petitioners did not file the petition before retrial benefits were released in their favour and interest could be granted only if a principal is due. Even a suit for recovery of interest in which the principal amount has been paid is not generally maintainable. If that be so the same cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction. The petition i