High Court raps Admn for delaying payment by seeking unnecessary documents
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the Chandigarh administration for unjustifiably delaying the release of payment to a widow by demanding a legal heir certificate, even though it was not required by law. In a stern order, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj made it clear that the UT and its functionaries caused undue hardship and delayed the disbursement of undisputed payments due to her late husband by imposing baseless conditions on the petitioner.
The matter was placed before Justice Bhardwaj after the woman filed a plea seeking the execution of an order passed by the high court in November 2022. The Bench was told that the high court, vide the order, had directed the petitioner to appear before the Executive Engineer, Capital Project Division No.1, Chandigarh, and furnish the requisite documents.
The undisputed payment was directed to be released to the petitioner within eight weeks of submission of the “desired” documents, failing which she was held entitled to annual interest of 6 percent from the filing of the writ petition until its actual disbursement. However, the respondents, instead of releasing the payment after the petitioner submitted the necessary documents, directed her to obtain a legal heir certificate from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted that the demand for a legal heir certificate was unfounded and amounted to a deliberate attempt to delay compliance with the Court’s order. “As per the regulations/guidelines issued by the State of Punjab, a legal heir certificate is required to be issued only in favour of a government employee by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The prescription of the requirement to produce a legal heir certificate, after obtaining the same from the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was completely uncalled for,” the court asserted.
Justice Bhardwaj observed that it could not be presumed that the respondent-Sub Divisional Officer was unaware of the circumstances in which a legal heir certificate is required to be submitted. “Prescribing the production of a document which was unwarranted cannot be accepted as a demand for a bona fide requirement and is rather construed as a bid to delay enforcement of an order passed by this court,” the Bench asserted.
Justice Bhardwaj added that the officials had access to all legal elements and could not plead ignorance regarding the requirement prescribed or the circumstances in which a legal heir certificate is required to be produced by a claimant.
“Prescribing conditions in a mechanical and ministerial manner, leading to the escalation of adversities for a litigant and pushing them into unwarranted litigation, is clearly an act that needs to be deprecated. The respondents cannot seek condonation of their liability on account of non-compliance with an order, only on the strength of their belief, which such belief is not supported by any legal documentation,” the Bench added.
Before parting with the order, Justice Bhardwaj directed the respondents to pay the interest in accordance with the November 2022 order. “Under the given circumstances, the respondents are directed to release the interest, as awarded in favour of the petitioner, as per the order dated November 29, 2022, within a further period of two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order,” the court ordered, while asking UT to file a compliance report within three months.
