(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks pensionary benefits which could be made available to her deceased husband immediately on his retirement in the year, 1984.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her husband was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 1 and was later on sent on deputation with the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, after the retirement, the petitioner's husband was entitled to the pensionary benefits and as the same were not given to him, the petitioner being his widow is entitled to all the benefits. The respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 1 but his services were transferred to the respondent No. 2 under the directions of the State Government. They submit that such transfer could be treated as deputation if such a right was exercised by the Municipality. They submit that the respondent No. 2 repeatedly asked the respondent No. 1 for repatriation of such people but the said request was turned down by the Municipality under Annexure -R -1/3 on 24.11.80. They submit that petitioner's husband did not become a member of pension scheme, therefore the pension provisions are not applicable to him. In the alternative, they submit that on the date of retirement, petitioner's husband was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 2, therefore the respondent No. 2 alone is answerable to the claim of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that as, on transfer of petitioner's services from respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, the service conditions remained unaltered it must be held that the petitioner's husband was entitled to pension. He further submits that because of some ignorance or lack of know ledge, if petitioner's husband could not become a member of the pension scheme of the respondent No. 1, the just and legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. The respondents have reiterated their submissions as made in the return itself.