The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a widow cannot be deprived of family pension on allegations of misconduct against her deceased husband during service. Holding that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) finding could not substitute departmental proceedings, the High Court also ruled that an employee's retirement and pensionary benefits could not be withheld merely because the tribunal incidentally concluded that his driving licence was forged.
The ruling by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar came in the case of a university employee involved in a motor vehicle accident which allegedly led to the death of a person in 2017. The employee was at that time driving a varsity vehicle.
Justice Brar allowed the petition filed against Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, by the widow and son of the employee. The court directed the university to release all admissible retirement-cum-death and pensionary benefits with interest, consider the son's claim for compassionate appointment and decide the widow's claim regarding the balance amount of medical advance in accordance with the applicable rules.
The Bench was told that the now deceased employee had been serving the university as a regular employee since June 9, 2009, and died in harness on December 24, 2021. No disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending against him on the date of his death.
The respondent-varsity took a specific stand that his appointment was void ab initio in view of the MACT findings regarding forged nature of his driving license. Examining the university's stand, Justice Brar observed that the accident occurred in 2017 and the MACT award came in 2021. But nothing on record showed that the university initiated any inquiry or passed any order regarding the documents submitted by the employee at the time of his appointment.
The court observed: "Nothing on the record indicates that the respondent-University had passed any orders or initiated any inquiry against the deceased specifically with respect to the nature of documents submitted by him at the time of his appointment. Thus, it is clear that the respondent-University continued to extract work from him continuously till the date of his death in spite of being aware of the issue regarding his driving license."
The High Court further noted that the university had not denied that the deceased had rendered about 12 years of service and that his record remained unblemished. "It appears that the respondent-University has taken benefit of the services of the deceased for over a decade and is now looking for reasons to deny his family the retiral-cum-death and pensionary benefits accrued to him by virtue of his service," Justice Brar observed.
Rejecting the university's reliance on the MACT award, the court held that the tribunal's observations could not replace disciplinary proceedings. Justice Brar observed: "Such incidental observations cannot be used as a substitute for departmental proceedings. The conclusion drawn with respect to the driving license of the deceased is merely an incidental finding recorded by the MACT. It was not exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the deceased as its role is limited to ascertain liability and grant compensation."
The judgment also held that even if disciplinary proceedings had been initiated after the MACT award, they would have abated because the employee died about two months later. "Once the employee has passed away, the respondent-University had no occasion to conduct an inquiry, issue a charge-sheet or impose punishment and thus, had no cause to withhold retirement-cum-death benefits accrued to the deceased from his family. Therefore, any assertion regarding misconduct on part of the deceased ought to be found misconceived as it does not even satisfy the foundational aspect of audi alteram partem," the court observed.
Referring to the importance of pensionary benefits, Justice Brar observed that these were often the only source of income for families after the death of the primary breadwinner. "Oftentimes, retirement-cum-death and pensionary benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner has passed away. The kin of the deceased employees not only rely on the same for fiscal security but also for their very survival."
On the widow's entitlement, the High Court ruled: "Ordinarily, the widow cannot be deprived of the family pension as a part of disciplinary action against the deceased employee, unless the applicable service rules specifically provide for it. The independent right of the widow to family pension and other such benefits arises upon the death of the employee and the same cannot be violated merely by citing incidental findings of MACT."