RAMSAKHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, challenge is to the order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-10), vide which order, claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension after death of her husband has been declined by the respondents on the ground that late husband of the petitioner had never opted for the pension scheme which came into being in the year 1993.

(2.) As per the facts mentioned in the present petition, late husband of the petitioner, namely Itwari Lal, was appointed on the post of Boatman with the respondent-Department on 9/8/1982, but while working on the said post, he unfortunately died on 7/1/2004, leaving behind the petitioner, i.e. his wife, and two sons. After his death, the petitioner claimed for the grant of family pension but despite the fact that the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Panipat had recommended the claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension, vide letter dtd. 8/12/2004 (Annexure P-1), the respondents vide order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P10) declined the grant of said benefit to the petitioner on the ground that Late Itwari Lal never opted for the pension scheme, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of family pension after death of her husband. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the aforesaid ground which has been taken into account by the respondents vide order dtd. 12/9/2012 (Annexure P-10) to reject the benefit of grant of family pension to the petitioner is factually incorrect.