Punjab and Haryana High Court orders relief in 80-year-old widow's five-decade-long struggle to secure pension

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered relief for an octogenarian widow who has been fighting for nearly five decades to secure the grant of family pension and other retirement benefits of her husband, who died in 1974.

The court recorded that the petitioner, an illiterate and destitute 80-year-old widow, has been compelled to run from pillar to post for nearly five decades and ultimately approach the high court in her struggle to secure the grant of family pension and other retirement benefits of her late husband.

The Court of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, in its order dated November 14, directed the principal secretary or administrative officer in charge of the electricity department of the Haryana government to personally examine the veracity of her claims within a period of two months and to ensure that all lawful benefits due to the petitioner are released.

The court mentioned that constitutional courts bear a sacred obligation to uphold fundamental rights and to ensure that the constitutional vision extends its reach to the most vulnerable sections of society.

Within this constitutional scheme, the role of the judiciary in safeguarding and providing relief to the voiceless, the marginalised, and those dwelling at the lowest rungs of the social and economic order assumes utmost importance, Justice Brar observed.

The judge further noted that the Preamble solemnly enshrines the ideals of justice, social, economic, and political, as the guiding promise to every citizen.

When individuals from marginalised backgrounds lack the resources or the voice to vindicate their rights, it becomes the duty of the constitutional courts to ensure that those rights do not remain merely theoretical or illusory. The principle of constitutional compassion, grounded in human dignity, empathy, and the upliftment of the oppressed, has guided this approach, the judge observed in his order.

"Extending relief to a voiceless 80-year-old widow and securing her rights is thus not a matter of judicial discretion or benevolence, rather, it is a constitutional imperative anchored in the Preamble and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution," the judge said.

Disposing of her petition, Justice Brar also observed, "whenever courts fail to protect the weakest, the constitutional promise stands diminished. But when they rise to defend them, the transformative spirit of the Constitution shines in its truest form".

The counsel for the petitioner, among other things, had contended that the factual matrix of the case, which spans nearly five decades, reveals a saga of administrative apathy and a persistent struggle for rightful dues.

The woman and petitioner Laxmi Devi's husband, late Maha Singh, was appointed as lineman-II in the electricity department on June 24, 1955 and served in the erstwhile electricity department of the Haryana government. On January 5, 1974, he died in harness while working as a sub-station Officer under the executive engineer (P) division of the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), Ballabgarh.

Subsequently, the petitioner received an ex gratia payment of Rs 6,026; the woman's counsel had submitted arguing that all other retirement benefits, including family pension, gratuity, and leave salary, were never paid to the petitioner despite making numerous representations to the authorities concerned.

Despite multiple representations over the years, filing a writ in 2005, and an RTI application in recent years, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the authorities failed to resolve the matter with the departments concerned, merely exchanging correspondence without granting any substantive relief, and even citing that records were not available since the matter was very old.

It was also submitted that in 2007, the petitioner's son separated from her and moved away, leaving her without support. She became dependent on neighbours and later, her married daughter. Subsequently, the petitioner suffered serious illness and even became paralytic in 2015.

The petitioner's earlier writ petition was disposed of in 2005 with a direction to the respondents to decide her representation, and yet the matter was left pending, with the departments exchanging correspondence without granting any substantive relief.

"The case paints a disheartening and distressing picture of administrative apathy, the court observed and said the aged widow, already burdened by grief and financial hardship, had been made to suffer further because of systemic indifference and procedural neglect," the high court judge observed.

"Such situations highlight the unfortunate reality that those most in need of justice often find themselves most helpless in securing it. Left with no alternative, the petitioner was compelled to approach this court once more," the court observed.