KHIMIYA BAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.8.2009 by which it is communicated that the petitioner would not be entitled to the family pension as the husband of the petitioner was serving as a work charged contingency employee.

(2.) IT is contended that the issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 13653/2009 (s) decided on 11.1.2010 and, therefore, the similar directions may be issued.

(3.) IN the case at hand the petitioner's husband was engaged on daily -wage basis in the Work -charged establishment of Rani Awantibai Sagar Project. Thereafter, by order dated 29.6.1996 was brought on regular Work -charged establishment in grade 825 -900 -20 -1220 as Time Keeper. The late husband of the petitioner while in service expired on 12.2.2001. The petitioner after death of her husband approached the authorities for grant of family pension. The said request was turned down by letter dated 13.9.2006 on the ground that petitioner's husband since has not rendered 10 years of service in the Work -charged establishment she was not entitled for the family pension. It is this denial which has forced the petitioner to prefer the instant writ petition.