'Terribly Apathetic': P&H High Court Reprimands Authorities For Labelling Disability Of Employee Sustained During Service As 'Inefficiency'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the conduct of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (UHBVN) authorities who equated disability sustained by an employee during service with “inefficiency,” calling their approach “terribly apathetic.”

The Court also pulled up officials for asking a widow to prove that her husband had sustained injuries while on duty nearly 40 years ago. 

Petitioner's husband, an employee of UHBVN, suffered a non-fatal electric accident in 1983, resulting in disability of 90%, his services were terminated the same year for being "inefficient" without being granted any pension.

The petitioner later sought invalid pension for her late husband up to 1998, following which family pension was granted in 2014. However, the benefit was abruptly withdrawn in 2018. 

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, referring to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act's Sections 47 and 72, said, "Even a bare perusal of the abovementioned provisions would make it abundantly clear that the law explicitly prohibits the approach adopted by the respondent-Department. It is regrettable that the respondent-Department has chosen to equate disability sustained by the husband of the petitioner in an accident, with inefficiency as this perspective is not only expressly illegal but also terribly apathetic."

The Court said that the "hypertechnical and insensitive approach taken by the respondent Department is contrary to not only the applicable Rules but also the principles of equity. Equity often comes into play when mechanical adherence to the statutory law leads to an unfair and unconscionable outcome."

At times, when statutory law is silent on certain aspects or even ambiguous regarding a situation, the gap ought to be filled by relying on principles of equity, as it allows the justice dispensation mechanism to ensure that legal rights are not abused to meet unjust ends, it added.

Furthermore, the Court said that the respondent-Department ought to have the service record of the deceased so as to ascertain if he was working on 06.10.1980, when the accident occurred.

Perusing an office order it found that, "official records are unavailable and untraceable as they were ruined during the flood that occurred in Shahbad in the year 1997."

"It is curious as to how the respondent-Department can place the burden on the petitioner to prove that her husband sustained injuries while on duty," the Court added.

It observed that, "the absurdity of it is not just rooted in the fact that the document sought from the petitioner is about forty years old but also, notably, that the respondent-Department, admittedly, is not in possession of the attendance record, in spite of being the primary and the only official custodian of all departmental records."

The judge opined that he petitioner and her husband cannot be expected to produce the duty record of the husband of the petitioner, especially post his death, "while there is a reasonable expectation for the respondent-Department to possess the same as all service records are in its exclusive custody."

"the callousness displayed by the respondent- Department is inherently unjustifiable and does not deserve any condonation," it remarked.

Once Competent Authority Pass An order, The Successor Cannot Review The Same 

Justice Brar pointed that, the pension granted to the petitioner was withdrawn by the successor of the office, "For reasons unbeknownst to this Court, the Officer currently occupying the post of respondent No.3 has chosen to review and revise the same."

The Court observed that, It is settled law that once a competent authority has passed an order, the successor thereof cannot review the same as the law of estoppel would come into play.

Further, the successor-in-office can only review a duly passed order conferring certain service benefits if the same was passed without jurisdiction or in violation of Rules or, if the said order is vitiated by fraud etc, it said.

The Court concluded that such exercise must not be indulged in a casual, whimsical manner, merely motivated by prejudice. Thus, an arbitrary review of a predecessor's order is impermissible in law if the same is not void or contrary to the statutory provisions.

In the light of the above, the Court directed the Department to grant the pensionary benefits accrued to the deceased husband of the petitioner including family pension to the petitioner.

"The respondent-Department shall also release the arrears accumulated by the petitioner since passing of the impugned order at an interest of 7.5% p.a. in terms of A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343," it added.

Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate and Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate for the respondents.

Title: Bachan Kaur v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others

Click here to read/download the order