NANUBEN BHIKHUBHAI VARNANGAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.1.2005 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant- widow's claim for family pension on the ground that the appellant's husband- deceased employee had rendered service for less than five years and also on the ground that the claim for family pension was made by the appellant, widow 25 years after the death of the deceased employee.

(2.) The husband of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was employed as an armed police constable on 26.1.1965. The deceased was made permanent on 14.2.1969. On 25.7.1969, the deceased was suspended from service in connection with the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC registered as CR No.64 of 1969, which case was tried as Sessions Case No.11 of 1970. The deceased was acquitted in the said sessions case on 28.5.1970. It appears that another incident which took place on 24.7.1970 gave rise to two cross complaints, one filed by the deceased being CR No.136 of 1970 against Bhabhlu Musa for inflicting knife wounds on the deceased and, therefore, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26.7.1970. The other complaint being CR No.137 of 1970 was filed against the deceased in connection with the same incident for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) On 20.4.1992 (Annexure-I to the petition), the appellant herein- widow of the deceased sent a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code calling upon the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and District Superintendent of Police, Amreli to give family pension to the appellant. The claim was disputed by the DSP, Amreli vide reply dated 7.5.1992 (Annexure-J to the petition) stating that the service rendered by the deceased was not pensionable and, therefore, no pension or family pension was payable. However, an amount of Rs.1060/- was paid as gratuity. It appears that thereafter also the appellant was pursuing the matter with the authorities by sending applications in December 1992, May/October 1993 etc.. Since the appellant did not succeed before the departmental authorities, the petition giving rise to this appeal came to be filed in February 1995. It appears that no affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondent-authorities, but the matter was argued on the basis that the deceased not having rendered five years continuous service, his widow was not entitled to receive family pension. As already indicated earlier, the delay in filing the petition also seemed to have weighed with the learned Single Judge.