Smt. Nirmala Devi vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 20 March, 2009
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipal
Council as well as State have not disputed the aforesaid legal position. They
could not explain why in the written statement again the same stand was
taken which was earlier rejected by this Court. Both the counsel could not
controvert the legal position as enumerated above and also could not give
any reason for denying the benefit of pension to the petitioner. When the
counsel could not explain the delay in granting the genuine relief to a poor
citizen, counsel for the respondents were asked on the last date of hearing to
intimate the Secretary of the Municipal Council and Director, Local Bodies
to come present in Court. Today, they are present in Court, but could not
satisfactorily explain why the rightful due of pension of the poor person,
like the petitioner, has been withheld for a period of about five years.
During the course of hearing, it was explained that the Municipal Council,
Thanesar was not aware of the true legal position and a clarification was
also sought, but no reply was given from the office of Directorate of Local
Bodies. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that because of the casual
attitude of the officials of the Municipal Council and the Director, a poor
woman has been deprived of her pension for a period of above five years,
and has been compelled to approach this Court, particularly when this
controversy was already set at rest by this Court in Tirath Singh's case
(supra) before the retirement of the petitioner. In spite of that decision, the
respondent-authorities slept over the matter during all these years.