LEELAWATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is an example of the false hopes created in the mind of the public due to inadvertent or deliberate and misconceived concession made by public authorities in the proceedings pending before a Court. The petitioners have heavily relied on order dated April 21, 1993 passed in C.W.P. No. 10133 of 1992, which is based on a concession made by the District Primary Education Officer, Rohtak and, as would be seen hereinafter, this concession was thoroughly misconceived and this order cannot be made the basis for giving relief to the petitioners.

(2.) Now a brief reference to the facts is necessary for deciding whether the claim made by the petitioner for grant of pension from the date of retirement of their husbands is legally tenable or not.

(3.) The husbands of the petitioners were appointed as J.B.T. Teachers in the erstwhile District Board Schools. All of them were working as J.B.T. Teachers on 1.10.1957, the date on which the erstwhile District Board Schools were taken over by the Government and all the teachers were absorbed in the Government service. They retired from service on the dates of attaining the age of superannuation and these dates were prior to 31.10.1966. Late husbands of the petitioners represented for grant of pension and after considering the various aspects of the matter the Government of Haryana issued a policy circular dated 14.7.1977 for grant of pension with effect from 18.12.1972 to those teachers who had served in the erstwhile District Board schools upto 1.10.1957 and who retired from service between 1.10.1957 to 31.10.1966. On the basis of this circular the petitioners were given family pension.