Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Chander Kanta vs The Union Of India And Another on 18 September, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008
Date of decision: 18.9.2009
Smt. Chander Kanta ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. R.S.Dadwal, Central Government Counsel for
Intelligence Bureau.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
Except certain minor and inconsequential variations with regard to the date on which the 'missing' husband of the petitioner joined Army and retired from the employment, following facts are beyond the pale of controversy:-
Sepoy Ram Nath, husband of the petitioner joined the Army on 1.4.1957 (as per the averment in the written statement, he had joined on 21.2.1957). The petitioner averred the date of retirement of Sepoy Ram Nath to be 1.4.1972; whereas respondents No.1 and 2 averred it to be 31.5.1972. The unanimity of facts ends here.
It is the plea on behalf of the petitioner that her husband joined the Intelligence Bureau in the year 1975, as a Sepoy, and was posted at Hoshiarpur. He was assigned some secret duty by the Intelligence Bureau on 14.12.1977 and his whereabouts are not available ever since then,. The petitioner addressed a number of communications to the concerned Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -2- **** authorities requesting for their assistance in tracing the whereabouts of her husband. The first request dated 6.1.1978 (Annexure P-2) was addressed by her to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, which the latter marked to Station House Officer, Police Station City, Hoshiarpur. She addressed a representation dated 12.10.1978(Annexure P-3) to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.B.I, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. On not getting a response to her grievance detailed in Annexures P-2 and P-3, she addressed a communication dated 5.4.1979 to the Home Minister, Government of India, New Delhi, vide which she requested for financial assistance for her family. In the course thereof, she also made a grievance that the whereabouts of her husband are not traceable since 14.12.1977. Vide her letter dated 6.8.1979 (Annexure P-5), she again requested the Union Home Minister to render help in tracing her missing husband and also about the award of pension/subsistence allowance to enable her to bring up the family which had no means of sustenance. The petitioner addressed a communication dated 6.2.1980 to the Prime Minister of the country wherein she reiterated her grievance. Vide letter dated 15.9.1980 addressed to the S.S.P., Hoshiarpur, she sought assistance of the addressed officer in tracing the whereabouts of her missing husband and also for financial assistance. She again addressed a communication dated 17.11.1982 to the then Prime Minister of the country. Annexure P-9 is the reiteration of similar request by the petitioner to the President of India. A copy thereof was forwarded to the Chief Justice of the Apex Court and also the Prime Minister of the country. The unresponsive attitude of the addressed quarters impelled her to serve a legal notice (Annexure P-11) dated 14.9.2001 upon the 1) The Secretary, Department of Defence Personnel, Govt. of India, Nedw Delhi, 2) Officer Commanding, Dogra Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -3- **** Regiment, Meerut Cantt., 3) The Intelligence Bureau, Katcha Toba Near Telephone Exchange, Hoshiarpur through its Incharge and 4) the Collector, Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. In response thereto, the Officer incharge records of the Dogra Regiment Abhilekh Karyalaya, Faijabad, required her to produce certain documentation for consideration of her grievance for the award of ordinary family pension from Army side. The needful was done by her counsel vide communication dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure P-13). A communication, in the form of a reminder, was issued by her counsel to the addressed quarters aforementioned on 7.7.2002 (Annexure P-14). Ultimately, the respondents (vide order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure P-24) sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs.49/- per month with effect from 9.4.2002 i.e. the date on which the FIR was lodged by the petitioner announcing absence of her husband to the police. On these averments, the petitioner applied for the issuance of mandamus to the respondents to grant family pension to her with effect from 14.12.1977 after the period whereabouts of her husband Sepoy Ram Nath are traced out.
Respondent no.3, in short reply, denied having anything at all to do with Sepoy Ram Nath. The pure and simple averment, in the context, was that the husband of the petitioner had never been employed by the Intelligence Bureau. That written statement of respondent no.3 is dated 18.8.2008. Prior thereto, a written statement had been filed on behalf of all the three respondents. In the course thereof, it was averred that the family pension plea raised by the petitioner ( for the award thereof with effect from 14.12.1977) could not be processed for want of relevant documentation from the petitioner. The respondents, in that act of resistance, relied upon relevant instructions Annexure R-1.
There can be no dispute with the fact that the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -4- **** been crying hoarse before the competent authority that her husband had gone missing with effect from 14.12.1977. She had not only addressed the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned, she had also addressed a communication to Army quarters and also the Prime Minister and the President of the country. Infact, Annexure P-18 is a certification dated 2.5.2003 issued by the Station House Officer, Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur in the following terms:-
"It is certified that No. 3949189 Ex-Sepoy Ram Nath, son of Shri Thakur Dass resident of Village & P.O., Hardokhanpur, Police Station Model Town Hoshiarpur, Tehsil & District Hoshiarpur, has been missing since 14.12.1977. As per DDR No. 10 dated 19.4.2002 Police Station Model Town Hoshiarpur, he has not been traced out so far as per police record of Police Station Model Town Hoshiarpur."
Likewise, Annexure P-19 is the certification dated 9.5.2003 issued by the D.P.D.O., Hoshiarpur, which also is extracted hereunder:-
"It is certified that No. 3949189 Ex-Sepoy Ram Nath, resident of Village & P.O., Hardokhanpur, was drawing his service pension as sanctioned vide PPO No. SI/14071/72 under HO No. 38404. He has been last paid upto and for 31.10.1977. He is missing since 14.12.1977"
Annexure P-17 is a non remarriage certification issued by the petitioner in the following terms:-
"I, Smt. Chander Kanta wife of No.3949189 Ex-Sepoy Ram Nath, resident of village & P.O. Hardokhanpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, hereby certify that I have not remarried after the date of missing of my husband till date". Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -5-
**** The certification aforementioned was attested by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Hardokhanpur.
It would be apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the material obtaining on the file that though the petitioner has not been able to falsify the averment (by respondent no.3) about having anything at all to do with the husband of the petitioner, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has been making grievance of the facts before all the competent authorities ever since the year 1978. As already noticed, the first communication addressed by her to Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur is dated 6.1.1978. Her husband had been missing with effect from 14.12.1977. The petitioner, is thus, proved to have notified facts to the Deputy Commissioner of the District with promptitude. Thereafter, she had been communicating facts to all the competent authorities, details whereof stand noticed in the preceding paras of this judgment. Family pension has already been sanctioned to her with effect from the date she lodged the FIR.
It is apparent, from a perusal of pleadings-based resistance presented by the respondents, that essential sustenance to explain away non consideration of the request made by the petitioner, is drawn from instructions Annexure P-25 which require an applicant of the indicated category to furnish, in the first instance, a copy of the FIR which may have been lodged with the police intimating the non-traceability of the whereabouts of an employee. These instructions came into being in the year 1989. A perusal of the instructions Annexure P-25 would indicate that the instructions dated 3.4.1989 were issued on the basis of certain other correspondence dated 29.8.1986 and 8.12.1987. The former purports to be a letter issued by the Minister of Personnel P & PW; while the latter Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -6- **** purports to be a CAG circular. It is not the averment before this Court that there were any prior instructions on the point of grant of family pension to eligible family members of the employees who had disappeared/missing and whose whereabouts were not known.
In this case, the petitioner had been approaching all the quarters which could possibly be competent to grant relief to her in the relevant behalf. She approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district. She addressed two communications to the Home Minister of the country. She also addressed two communications to the Prime Minister of the country. She had been addressing various communications to the relevant Regiment from where the husband of the petitioner retired on superannuation. It already stands noticed that the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station and also the DPDO of the concerned district issued individual certification that the husband of the petitioner was missing from 14.12.1977. In the light thereof, there is no force in the resistance on behalf of the respondents that the matter with regard to grant of family pension with effect from 14.12.1977could not favourably be considered. The basic purpose of lodging of an FIR with the police is to notify the fact indicated therein to the Police and it is precisely what the petitioner had done at the earliest.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.10268 of 2004 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.8.2005. In the course of the order, the Bench noticed the averment made by the respondents in the course of the written statement that they had desired the petitioner therein (and also herein) to furnish certain documentation including a copy of FIR and a non marriage certificate issued by the Panchayat etc. The petitioner is indeed proved to Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2008 -7- **** have furnished the required information to the respondents. The fact that she lodged the FIR much later is completely outweighed by the fact that she had notified the non-traceability of the whereabouts of her husband to the District Magistrate and Police Chief of the District at the earliest.
As already noticed in an earlier part of the judgment, the respondents had already granted family pension w.e.f. 19.4.2002 to the petitioner i.e. the date on which FIR was lodged by her. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the denial of family pension to the petitioner with effect from 14.12.1977 cannot be upheld. It shall stand invalidated accordingly. The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner with effect from 14.12.1977. The exercise shall be concluded within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Disposed of in the terms aforementioned.
September 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge