RAHEMATBOO RAHIMKHAN PATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is widow of a deceased Government servant. She seeks family pension on the basis of Government scheme. Unfortunately, such scheme is not on record. The petitioner due to her handicap has not been able to produce the Government scheme. Government for 18 years has not filed reply.

(2.) Be that as it may, my task has become relatively simpler since it is pointed out from the service record of the husband of the petitioner produced at Annexure-A to the petition that after service of about 11 years as peon in Government service, he tendered his resignation way back in the year 1951. He passed away in the year 1991. When it is an admitted position that husband of the petitioner had tendered his resignation and had neither retired on superannuation nor was allowed to retire voluntarily, question of granting any pension to him or family pension to his dependents would not arise.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner however, pointed out that by order dated 9.7.1993, learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Government to work out pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and deposit the same before the Court. Subsequently in order dated 2.9.1995 passed in Civil Application No. 1899/1994 in Special Civil Application No.2210/1992 this Court observed that pendency of the petition would not preclude the respondents to show their grace by granting family pension to the petitioner without reference to the arrears which may be found payable.