TRIPTA JAITLEY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioners have claimed family pension. Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley, husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner No. 2 joined as Lab Assistant on work-charged basis on 30.04.1977. He died on 09.09.1982. On 09.11.1983 instructions were issued to regularize the services of those persons who had put in four years of work-charge service as on 31.12.1981. The benefit of these instructions has however denied to the petitioners because, as mentioned above their predecessor-in-interest, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jaitley had died on 09.09.1982.

(2.) In the written statement, the only ground taken for denying the family pension to the petitioners is that Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley did not have 10 years service to his credit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the requirement of 10 years service is for regular pension and family pension has to be granted under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 under which there is no such stipulation. As per him, once Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley was entitled for regularization w.e.f. 31.12.1981 the fact that he died on 09.09.1982 could not takeaway this vested right and he would have had to notionally regularized and once that was done his legal representatives would be entitled for family pension. As per Rule 6.17(ii) of the said scheme only one year service is required for entitlement to family pension which the petitioners fulfil. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Chameli v. The State of Haryana and others,1999 2 RSJ 688, wherein it was held as follows:-