MOMMI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitkmer is widow whose husband was working as J.B T. teacher. Her husband, Prem Singh, was initially appointed as J.B.T. teacher w,e.f. 9.1,1967 on ad-hoc basis and he was allowed to continue as such, when his services were regularised w.e.f. 1.1.1979 by the Haryana Government vide a general Policy decision. Unfortunately, petitioner's husband expired on 1,11.1979 when he was sewing as JBT teacher in Govt. Middle School, Kalron, District Karnal. Petitioner. requested the respondents to release family pension as her husband had died during service after completing more than one year's service. However, her request was declined vide order dated 5.7.1989 on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension as the deceased had not completed one year's service. This order, Annexure P 4, is being impugned in the present writ.

(2.) Respondents in their written statement have stated that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension as the husband of the petitioner had not completed one regular service.

(3.) Having heard the iearned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. Petitioner, in the writ petition, has stated that the State of Haryana vide memo No. FD Haryana 1/2 (II)-80-2FR-II dated 31.1.1984, has taken a decision for counting the ad-hac service towards qualifying service for pension. Petitioner has attached this Memo, dated 31.1.1984 as Annexure P-5. In this memo., a reference has been made to instructions contained in Department's circular letter No. 2279-IFR/20589 dated 11.6.1974, which provides for counting of ad-hoc service as qualifying service for pension. Respondents have not denied he issuance of this memo., rather have stated that ad-hoc service is to be treated as qualifying service for pension. In view of this stand of the respondents, I fail to understand as to why in the case of the petitioner, ad-hoc service put in by her husband was not co inted as qualifying service for family pension. In this view of the matter, action of the respondents in denying family pension to the petitioner cannot be sustained.