RAMPYARI SHUKLA Vs. SECRATARY SENTRAL SOCIAL WELFARE FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "socialism for the Superannuated" is perhaps a myth or atleast a "concept" limited to jurists and judges of this country. The concept has yet to activate our bureaueracy, particularly of our State of Madhya Pradesh, which perhaps continues to believe that every government servant attains 'moksha' on his retirement and needs nothing to survive like a wordly creature. The present writ petition, filed by a retired and lonely widow praying for pensionary benefits due to her, sufficiently justifies these observations.

(2.) THE obvious facts are that the petitioner was working as a gram sevika and retired on superannuation on 31-8-1982 vide orders P-1 and P-2. It is also apparent that she has not been paid any pensionary benefit due to her under rules. She even complains of non-payment of her provident fund money. From the letter dated 20-10-1982 by the Respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 it is clear that he sought directions for preparing her pension papers. It is also clear that the respondent No. 3 in his reply dated 7-12-1982 informed that since the State Government has not taken any decision about service conditions of persons like the petitioner, action on her pension would be taken only after the decision of the State Government. (P-4 ). That is where the matter is still pending and that appears to be the reason why the petitioner has not been paid any pensionary benefit.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner was originally working as a Bal-Sewika in the family and Child Welfare Scheme run by the M. P. State Social Welfare Board since 6-5-1960. It further appears that the said scheme was abolished by the State Government and all Bal Sewikas were absorbed as Gram Sevikas. That is how the services of the petitioner came to be transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and Panchayat. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of her service with madhya Pradesh State Social Welfare Board for purposes of pensionary benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's services were terminated by the said Board and she was given fresh appointment. Indeed the facts speak otherwise. She was absorbed as Gram Sewika and not appointed afresh, indicating thereby that her earlier post was treated as equivalent to her present post. In this view of the matter, there is apparently no reason why her entire service should not count for pensionary benefits and these benefits should be calculated and paid accordingly. Even if a decision on the question was likely to be delayed, there is no reason why she should not have been paid provisional gratuity and pension as per rules. Indeed it is not understood why a decision on such a small matter should take so long a time. Nothing but the culpable neglect on the part of those responsible for taking decision can be the reason.