RANJANBEN J JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged resolution/order dated 26.07.2012 at Annexure:A passed by the State Government through its Education Department in so far as the sanction for family pension to the petitioner is given from 14.10.2010 and not from the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that her late husband named Janakray Himatlal Joshi was appointed as Chowkidar by order dated 27.05.1983 in the pay scale of Rs.196 232 by the Director of NCC (National Cadet Corps), Gujarat Dadranagar Haveli, Diu and Daman, Ahmedabad. While in service, the husband of the petitioner was served with charge sheet on 19.06.1990 for remaining absent from service without permission. However, the husband of the petitioner died due to illness on 09.11.1990. Therefore, departmental inquiry initiated against him was not proceeded further. The petitioner has averred that on account of death of husband of the petitioner, the NCC Group Head Quarter at Rajkot instructed the unit at Surendranagar to prepare family pension papers of the petitioner and to forward to the Director of Pension for necessary action vide a communication dated 04.12.1990. However, no further action in this regard was taken. The petitioner then made representation dated 20.04.2001 to the Director of NCC at Ahmedabad, requesting for grant of family pension to her, but, since nothing was done, she made application before alternative resolution mechanism forum at High Court on 29.10.2010, which was registered as Pre Litigation No.270 of 2010 in permanent Lok Adalat (VISAMA). Before such forum, it was represented to regularize the absent period of the husband of the petitioner by treating the leave as extraordinary leave, however, there was no response from the Education Department. Ultimately, by the impugned resolution dated 26.07.2012, the State Government has taken decision to sanction family pension to the petitioner with effect from 14.10.2010 on petitioner filing undertaking that she would accept family pension at the minimum rate. The petitioner has contended that such resolution is unjust and contrary to law. It is averred that since, the husband of the petitioner died while in service, the petitioner became entitled to family pension following the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner has also averred that the husband of the petitioner was entitled for benefit of the revision of pay and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to difference of pay on pay fixation of the pay scale of her husband.

(3.) The petition is opposed by affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, stating that the husband of the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for 1612 days. It is stated that the family of the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.4326/ on 06.06.1993. It is further stated that the petitioner moved application for family pension on 14.10.2010 i.e. after lapse of 20 years from the date of death of her husband and though there was huge delay on the part of the petitioner, the department on sympathetic ground passed order for granting family pension with effect from 14.10.2010. On behalf of the petitioner, rejoinder affidavit is filed pointing out that immediately after the death of husband of the petitioner, it was the obligation on the part of the department to prepare the family pension papers and process the same immediately after the death of husband of the petitioner.