GITABEN VINODRAI DAVE Vs. JILLA PANCHAYAT BHAVNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in paragraph 10(A) to (C) in this petition filedunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that her husband who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri from 16.11.1975 suddenly eloped on 28.8.1979 while in service. Police Complaint was lodged about missing of her husband on 23.9.1979 which was registered as Janva Jog Entry No. 67 of 1979 and though more than 23 years have passed, the petitioner has been left in lurch and lost the only earning member in the family. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the policy of the State Government, the petitioner was entitled to family pension and other benefits including the compassionate appointment. However, there is no response from the concerned authorities to whom the application was made by the petitioner. The petitioner has averred that as per the policy dated 12.9.1987 issued by the Government of Gujarat, members of the family of missing employee would be entitled to family pension. However, the respondents have not released any such benefit to the petitioner.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 by filing affidavit in reply stating that the husband of the petitioner who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri was not on duty from 20thAugust, 1979 and never made any report thereafter. It is further stated that later on the petitioner approached the Taluka Development Officer, Vallabhipur for various benefits and some details were called for from the petitioner. It is further stated that respondent No.2 also addressed letter to the Police Inspector, Valabhipur on 6th June, 2000 to provide necessary certificate declaring husband of the petitioner as dead. It is also stated that the husband of the petitioner had served for three years and 7 months and minimum seven years service is required and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. It is further stated that the PSI informed respondent no.2 that there was no details and information about death of husband of the petitioner and, therefore, no death certificate could be issued for the husband of the petitioner.