BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kusam Gajri wife of late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Accountant, Municipal Council, Amloh has filed the present writ petition against the State of Punjab and Municipal Council, Amloh and it has been prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents to release the family pension to the petitioner which has not been allegedly released so far after the death of her husband, who died on 1.4.1998, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that after the death of her husband Shri Rakesh Kumar she is not being released the family pension and other benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, etc. As per the averments, the deceased joined as Clerk in Municipal Council, Sirhind in the year 1976. He continued working there for a period of two years and thereafter he was transferred to Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh. He died on 1.4.1998. The service of the deceased was governed by the pension scheme known as Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994. These rules became enforceable w.e.f. 1.4.1990. As per Rule 3, an employee is to exercise option within a period of four months from the date of publication of the rules. But with regard to the employees who were on leave or were under suspension, four months have to be counted after their reinstatement. The husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1992 and remained under suspension till November, 1996. Therefore, he could not give the option. With this background the petitioner has made the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The State of Punjab filed the written statement. According to this respondent, the deceased employee was reinstated in November, 1996. He did not exercise his option on reinstatement. The option alleged to have been exercised in November, 1994 is concocted one inasmuch as the signatures of the deceased employee on it do not tally with the specimen signatures of the employee. Further this option has been countersigned by the Executive Officer who is now officiating as Deputy Director, Local Government in the Directorate. When the option was put up to him for identification of the signatures, he categorically stated that his signatures have been forged. According to this respondent, the whole claim has been concocted with the employees of the Municipal Council. As there was no valid option given by the deceased employee in November, 1994, therefore, the petitioner can not take the advantage of the family pension.