Telangana High Court
B. Anand Rao, Hyderabad vs The Secretary, New Delhi And 2 Others on 15 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 15999 OF 2008
ORDER:
Petitioner complains that Respondents 2 and 3, Director General and Director of National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) are not releasing the retirement benefits. He also sought a direction to the respondents to provide employment to his wife on compassionate grounds.
2. Petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent Department is stated to have developed 'Glucoma' and lost left eyesight. On being referred to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, petitioner was assessed as suffering 60% blindness and he is unfit to work. As the same decease was affecting his right eye also, on the advice of the 3rd respondent, petitioner applied for retirement on medical grounds, seeking compassionate appointment to his wife. The 3rd respondent addressed the 2nd respondent on 23.09.2004 for consideration and thereafter, petitioner was permitted to retire on medical grounds with effect from 31.07.2002, vide proceedings dated 14.12.2006. He is stated to have made a fresh Application to the 3rd respondent in March 2007 requesting for payment of retirement benefits and to provide employment to his wife, 2 however, even after six years, respondents did not consider the same. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. This Court, by order dated 10.09.2008, granted interim direction as prayed for. Seeking vacation of the said order, Respondents 2 and 3 had taken out an Application, wherein by order dated 20.01.2009, in view of submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that petitioner is not covered under pension scheme, therefore, question of paying pension does not arise, vacated the interim order. Thereafter, W.P.M.P.No. 35553 of 2008 which was filed to consider the representations dated 16.11.2008 and 24.11.2008 was ordered.
4. The Director of NIFT filed the counter-affidavit, gist of which is that on 23.09.2004, case of petitioner was recommended to Head Office to permit him retire on medical grounds, in the meanwhile, his wife Mrs. G. Keerthi refused the offer of job in her letter dated 15.12.2004 owing to legal wrangle between herself and petitioner and subsequently, on 30.03.2005, she sent a request letter to NIFT, Hyderabad not to release his terminal benefits till her grievance is redressed. It is stated that though petitioner was communicated permission of NIFT, Head Office to retire on medical grounds on 05.02.2007, with a request to forward fresh application, on 25.06.2008 only, he preferred to file Application, which was forwarded to NIFT, 3 Head Office, New Delhi on 07.08.2008 and the same is under consideration. According to this respondent, NIFT is an autonomous institution where the employees do not have any pensionary benefits; petitioner had drawn his PF, by his own admission, on 25.02.2005. As per NIFT Service Rules, minimum period of service to become eligible for gratuity is five years, however, they sought clarification from Head Office whether he is eligible to gratuity as he worked only seven years including 773 days of leave; now the same was clarified and an amount of Rs.17,290/- was paid through cheque No. 019037 which was sent through registered post on 19.08.2008 but the same was returned as 'addressee left'. As regards the compassionate appointment, it is stated, petitioner's wife is not willing to accept as per her letter dated 18.12.2004, and it is under consideration by the Head Office.
5. While that being so, on 13.10.2023, at the hearing, Smt. L. Pranathi Reddy, counsel representing the Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that by letter dated 23.02.2022, the Deputy Director (Establishment) addressed petitioner making it clear that compassionate appointment was given to his wife in compliance with the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35553 of 2008 and she also submitted that further information regarding the benefits received by petitioner 4 and if any certificate of death of his wife, who was given employment on petitioner being medically invalidated and also the details of pension being drawn by the family members of his wife, etcetera would be placed on record. On 03.11.2023, counsel for respondents sought further time to get instructions as to the salary being drawn by the wife of petitioner, who is still working in NIFT, Hyderabad as the same is contrary to the statement of petitioner that 'his wife is no more'. Thereafter, Writ Petition underwent several adjournments on one ground or the other.
6. Due to change in roster, matter was listed before this Bench. On 20.06.2024, noticing petitioner in Court Room, shook by his pathetic situation, this Court directed Office of Deputy Solicitor General to make their submissions on the next date of hearing. When perused the material placed on record, it is evident that there were matrimonial disputes and in that connection, O.P.No. 72 of 2010 was filed by petitioner under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for maintenance of Rs.5000/- from his wife, wherein the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4000/- per month towards maintenance of husband including food, clothes, medicines, shelter, etcetera on or before 10th of every month.
5
7. Today, Sri Gade Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General, officials of NIFT as well as wife of petitioner present. Wife submits that they have been living separately due to matrimonial disputes; she is earning Rs.38,000/- per month, and with great difficulty, she could meet the expenses of herself and their son and that she is not in a position to take care of her husband. She further submits that she has been sending Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner towards maintenance, which is evident from the copies of UPI payment placed by her.
8. In view of the said submission, petitioner requests this Court to divide salary of his wife into three parts; for his wife, son and himself. Though wife is not willing, with the persuasion of Court, she expresses readiness to pay Rs.7,000/- per month.
9. However, keeping in view the soaring rise in the cost of living and the precarious health condition in which petitioner is placed as of now, this Court, with the consent of all the parties, directs the wife, though not a party to the Writ Petition, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, on or before 10th of every succeeding month. This Court believes that the official respondents ensure the said amount is paid to petitioner, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
6
10. On humanitarian grounds, when this Court suggested the officials of NIFT to show some concern and sympathy on the health condition of petitioner, they positively responded and assured to provide health-card, enabling him to get the medical facilities in any hospital.
11. This Court would fail in duty if the efforts made by Sri Gade Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General are not silver-lined. The swiftness which Sri Praveen Kumar exhibited in putting a quietus to the litigation of 2008 coupled with humanitarian approach, commends applause.
12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 15th July 2024 ksld