MALTI BAI SINHA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-4 dtd. 1/7/2019 whereby the claim for pension of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Facts of the case is that husband of the petitioner late Dhaniram Sinha was appointed as a Gangman on 10/5/1975 under the respondents under Contingency Establishment. Husband of the petitioner died on 1/8/2018. The husband of the petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation on 30/4/2001.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that husband of the petitioner had put in about 25/26 years of service but he has not been granted pension. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner died on 1/8/2018. The claim now has been pursued by the widow i.e. the petitioner claiming family pension. According to the petitioner, the respondents have refused to grant pension to the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 dtd. 1/7/2019 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the grant of rejection is totally unsustainable. As per according to the petitioner the husband of the petitioner as well as the petitioner, they are entitled for pension under Chhattisgarh(Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (in short "Rules of 1979"). The petitioner further submitted that under the said rules of 1979 there was no requirement of an employee to be regularized in the service enabling him for pension. According to the rules, all that is required was whether the employee was a permanent employee or not and whether the employee has put in more than 15 years of service or not? In case, if the employee has both these characteristics, the employee would be entitled for pension.