SUSHILABEN Vs. DIRECTOR OF PENSION AND PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a widow of Shri Kilavarsinh D. Jhala, has filed this petition and prayed for direction to the respondents to pay her family pension from 1.10.1977 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is not in dispute that family pension has been given to the petitioner by respondent with effect from 1.4.1992 when the petitioner had approached this court through Manila Utkarsh Trust. However, in the present Special Civil Application the claim of the petitioner for family pension is from 1.10.1977. Reply to the Special Civil Application has been filed and contention has been made therein that the husband of the petitioner remained absent for a period of more than eight years and as such it is found that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. However, she has been given family pension in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 24th March, 1992 and 3rd August, 1992. A copy of the Resolution dated 3rd August 1992 has been filed on record of this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The respondents are wholly incorrect and in fact have acted highly arbitrarily in putting in service the aforesaid Resolution of the Government justify their action to give family pension to the petitioner only from 1.4.1992. This Resolution related to grant of family pension to the dependents of the Government servants who died while in service or retired from services on or before 1st may, 1960 and as such, this Resolution aforesaid of the Government is not applicable to the present case. The defence of the respondent that the petitioner's husband was absent from duty for a period of more than eight years is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. The respondents have failed to produce any material in support of this contention on record of the Special Civil Application.