WPSS/1185/2020 of SAROJINI SHUKLA Vs BOARD OF DIRECTORS NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION OFFICE

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition (S/S) No.1185 of 2020

Sarojini Shukla and another

..…Petitioners

Versus

Board of Directors and others

.… Respondents

Present :-

Mr. Umesh K. Pahwa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate, for the respondents.

Dated: 1stDecember, 2021

JUDGEMENT

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The brief facts and the principal ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner is on the premise, that there happens to be depreciation caused to her in granting the lumpsum payment amount, which she contends, that she would otherwise be entitled to receive in pursuance to the subsequent policy, which was enforced by the respondents, for the purposes of determination of the lumpsum payment which was to be made to the dependants of the deceased employee.

2. Brief facts are that the NHPC Employees Social Security Scheme, 2006, determined the parameters for the purposes of payment of the lumpsum amount in lieu of erstwhile scheme of compassionate appointment, which was introduced by the respondent as per the Circular No. 20 of 2006 dated 17[th] August, 2006, which provided that the assured benefit to be given in case of death of an employee, during the services and the quantification of the amount of claim of the lumpsum amount was self-contained in the Policy which was issued by the Circular of 17[th] August, 2006.

3. The petitioners case have been that the late husband of the petitioner, who was working as Senior Foreman, with the respondents, bearing employee No. 182714-T, was working in

Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project, but unfortunately, he met with the sad demise on 10[th] February, 2001, due to cardiac arrest.

4. The petitioner’s case is that she was survived, along with three children, out of which, two of them were minor at the time of death of her late husband of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that, it was rather the respondents who vide their communication of 2[nd] March, 2001, had invited an application from the petitioner for the purposes of considering the claim for payment of lump sum amount under the Policy prevalent at the relevant point of time, which according to the respondents, the petitioner would have been otherwise entitled, due to sudden demise of her husband.

5. The petitioner responded to it, and had approached the respondents on 11[th] May, 2001, and consequently, the Manager of the Project, on the basis of the application which was submitted by the petitioner, was duly processed the same and forwarded the claim for the payment of the lump sum amount to the Assistant Manager (P & A) of the Project. There was simultaneous claim raised by the petitioner for the grant of appointment to her elder son, i.e. petitioner No. 2 to the Writ Petition. But, when there was inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment for lump-sum payment, despite of having themselves solicited the application from the petitioner in pursuance to the communication dated 2[nd] March, 2001, the petitioner, owing to the family contingency, which she was facing at that time on account of various ailments which was diagnosed, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1989 of 2016, before this Court praying for the remittance of the amount of lump sum benefit, which was to be extended to the dependants of the deceased employee.

6. The said Writ Petition of the petitioner was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and in the light of the provisions

contained in para 2.5 (v) of the said Scheme, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents, that the representation of the petitioner may be considered by the General Manager / Officer In-charge, Dhauliganga, Hydro Electric Project, and who shall examine the petitioner’s claims independently, without being influenced by any other materials on record and the decision was expected to be taken by him within the time bound period, as prescribed by the judgement dated 23[rd] April, 2019.

7. Consequently, the petitioner had represented her claim on 6[th] May, 2019, and the same have been considered by the respondents and they have passed an order on 1[st] November, 2019, by virtue of which, the lump sum amount, which was determined to be paid was assessed to be Rs.4,83,026/-. The petitioner contends that she would be entitled for the payment of the amount as detailed in relief (i) to the Writ Petition, based on the prior existing Policy of 2006, and has also sought necessary amendment in the determination thus made on 1[st]November, 2019. In fact, the contention of the petitioner is that after the decision, which was rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23[rd] April, 2019, the petitioner contends that her claim ought to have been considered under the Policy of 1[st] June, 2007.

8. This Court is of the view that, looking to the factual backdrop, which has been brought on record, the petitioner’s claim for being considered for the grant of service benefits, as consequence of death of her husband on 10[th] February, 2021, would fall within the domain of then existing Policy i.e. prior to the Policy of 1[st] June, 2007, based on which, the decision was taken by the respondent on 3[rd]January, 2007.

9. In that eventually, once the determination of the claim of the petitioner has already been decided by the competent authority under the then existing policy, which has to be comensurated and read with the date, on which, the accrual of right of the petitioner came up

for consideration, has arisen in favour of the petitioner, the decision taken by the respondents on 1[st] November, 2019, cannot be faulted of in any manner, and it cannot be made as subject matter of re-determination now based on the revised or subsequent policy of 1[st]June, 2007, because it will not be having retrospective effect for the reason being, that even if when the matter was being considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, when the direction was issued to the respondents to decide the matter, in fact, the petitioner’s arguments have never been based in the light of the prospective of the implications, which he is trying to attract now in the instant Writ Petition, based on the Policy of 1[st] June, 2007, because it was never subject matter, on which, the adjudication was ever solicited by the petitioner from the Court, when earlier the matter has travelled to this Court at the behest of the petitioner.

10. In that view of the matter, I am of the confirmed view, that any subsequent decision which had been taken by the respondents will not govern the parameters for the determination of the entitlement of the lump sum payment to be made to the petitioner, because the claim of the petitioner, first of all, would be confined to the Policy, which was prevalent and was in vogue on the date of death of her husband, and hence, the determination made by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition, i.e. 1[st]November, 2019, since it has been decided on the basis of the existing Policy of 1[st] June, 2007, would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner.

11. Hence, the decision taken for the payment of the lump sum amount cannot be faulted of in any manner whatsoever. Hence the Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)01.12.2021