OM PATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the unfortunate widow, whose husband died while in Government service. Her claim for grant of family pension has been declined by the respondents, which has led her to file the present writ petition.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioner's husband joined the Haryana Government service as Irrigation Booking Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Betterment Levy Division, Rohtak on 22.1.1974. Subsequently his services were transferred in the same capacity to Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation w.e.f. 16.11.1976 and he was posted in Lining Division, Sirsa. According to the petitioner when the Lining Work had almost come to an end, the services of her husband were transferred to the Revenue Department and the Director Land Records, Haryana ordered that twenty persons relieved from Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation be appointed as Patwaris. The husband of the petitioner being one of those persons who had been relieved was appointed as Patwari on 23.1.1990. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband while working as such died on 6.7.1990. The petitioner claims that she was entitled to family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. This claim was denied by respondents on the ground that her case did not fall under the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme. The relevant extract of the Family Pension Scheme on which respondents rely is as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is wrong on the part of the respondents to consider that the initial recruitment of the petitioner's husband as Irrigation Booking Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Betterment Levy Divison, Rohtak was in a semi-government department. In fact according to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was a Government department and from there his services were transfered to the Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation. No option was asked at the time when services of the petitioner's husband were transferred to the Corporation and the transfer was not on the volition of the husband of the petitioner. He further submitted that in fact the petitioner's husband was not appointed patwari as afresh appointee but since the work of Canal Lining had almost come to an end, the surplus staff was absorbed in Revenue Department as Patwaris, According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire service should be counted as Government service. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appointment as Patwari was afresh appointment and since the services rendered in the Government department prior to the death of the husband of the petitioner was less than one year, the petitioner was not entitled to family pension in accordance with the Family Pension Scheme.