KASHIBEN Vs. DISTRICT AYURVED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, widow of late Mansukhlal D. Mehta, who was a Vaidya in the District Panchayat, Rajkot, by way of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, seeks to challenge the action of respondents of not paying family pension to her even though she is entitled for the same from the year 1981.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Vaidya in the year 1952 under respondent No. 1. He was ordered to be removed from services on 26.6.1972. He filed Regular Civil Suit No. 895 of 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot, challenging therein the order of his dismissal from service. That suit was transferred to the Court of Second Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Rajkot. The said suit came to be dismissed by Trial Court on 25.2.1977. The husband of the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1977 against dismissal of suit in the Court of District Judge, Rajkot, which was transferred to the Court of Joint District Judge, Rajkot, who by its judgment and decree dated 19th August, 1978, was pleased to allow the appeal and declared the dismissal of husband of the petitioner from services as illegal, inoperative and void. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the respondent, District Panchayat, Rajkot, filed Second Appeal No. 501 of 1978 before this Court. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 5.12.1978. The District Panchayat, Rajkot, filed Civil Application No. 2800 of 1978 in Second Appeal No. 501 of 1978 and prayer has been made therein for staying of the execution of decree passed by the Joint District Judge, Rajkot, in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1977. On 5.12.1978, this Court issued Rule in the Civil Application and it was made absolute on 2.4.1979. So the decree in favour of husband of the petitioner remained under stay till the second appeal was finally decided by this Court on 6th March, 1991. The Second Appeal of respondent, District Panchayat, Rajkot was dismissed. During the pendency of this appeal before this Court, the husband of the petitioner expired on 30th November 1987. After dismissal of Second Appeal, the respondent No. 1, on 25th February 1992, sanctioned family pension to the petitioner and also certified that the petitioner is entitled for family pension. The respondent No. 4, on 10.6.1992, informed the respondent No. 1 to furnish certain details to enable it to take necessary action for paying the family pension to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities for family pension but all remained unconsidered. On 26.6.1992, the petitioner also sent a notice through her advocate but it also remained unreplied. The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 64 of 1992 before this Court for initiating appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for deliberate and wilful breach of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 501 of 1978. In those proceedings, the learned counsel who appeared for respondents made a statement that the respondents have already started paying minimum family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner filed this Special Civil Application before this Court On 22nd February 1993 and prayers have been made therein for directions to the respondents to pay her family pension with interest thereon at the rate of!8%p.a.

(3.) This Court has passed many orders from time to time and reading thereof gives out that this Court has taken a serious view in the matter. However, from the reply which has been filed by respondents, it is no more in dispute that all the amount which was payable to the petitioner has already been paid and only the dispute now remains is for the claim for the petitioner for interest.