GOBINDI DEVI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up at motion stage for final disposal today itself. The husband of the petitioner retired on 30.4.1999, after having served the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Nigam"), after rendering 26 years of continuous service. He was initially appointed in the year 1973-74 on work charge basis as a Class IV employee. He continued to work on work charge basis, without break even for a day till he was made regular in the year 1992. Thereafter, he continued to work as a regular employee till 30.4.1999. He passed away on 4.10.2000. After his retirement till his death, the husband of the petitioner had received only a sum of Rs.16,541/- on account of Death-Cum-Retirement gratuity.

(2.) The sanction of the amount was communicated to the Administrative Officer of the Nigam by letter dated 29.9.2000 (Annexure R7). A copy of the communication had also been endorsed to the deceased with the observation that he should appear before the Accounts Officer to receive the payment. In the aforesaid communication, it was also commented that pension is not admissible to the deceased as his qualifying service was less than 10 years as required under the Rules. During his lifetime, the deceased had been pleading to the respondents for grant of pension. No action was taken by the respondents. After his death, the requests of the petitioner have also fallen on deaf ears. She has, therefore, filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner. The respondents have filed a written statement. It is stated that the respondents had circulated a Pension Scheme on 6.8.1993.

(3.) The employees were to exercise the option for coming under the Scheme within a period of three months. Another opportunity was given to the employees. By Memo dated 9.8.1994, the employees were permitted to exercise option upto 9.11.1994. According to the respondents, the husband of the petitioner did not exercise the option during the period of service.