KAMLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.11.2004 ( Annexure P.9) rejecting the claim of the petitioner to release family pension to her by considering that her husband was working as Sewer Helper on regular basis. The husband of the petitioner has been working as daily wager since September, 1992 as a Sewer Helper and he died on 24.7.2003. It is claimed that he was entitled to be regularised in service in pursuance to the policy letter dated 7.3.1996. He represented on 4.6.1997. After his death, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 25.11.2003. The writ petition filed by the petitioner namely CWP No.5997 of 2004 for the grant of family pension and regularisation of the services of the husband of the petitioner was disposed of on 8.4.2004 by issuing direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. On 11.11.2004, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected (Annexure P.9). It has been found that from 1993 to 1996 the husband of the petitioner had worked for a very little period and the detail is as under:

(2.) Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the services of her husband as well as for grant of family pension was rejected. We have heard the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The matter is not res-integra. According to paragraph 3 of the Family Pension Scheme 1964 the benefit could be extended only to regular employees of pensionable establishment temporary or permanent. The afore-mentioned provision reads as under:

(3.) The observations of the Division Bench are fully applicable to the case in hand as the petitioner's husband in the present case also worked as a work-charged. The judgement of the other Division Bench in Usha Rani v. State of Haryana 2004(4) RSJ 546 has no application to the facts of the present case.Infact para 11 (c) of the 1964 Scheme expressly provides that it would not be applicable to work charged staff. In vie of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.