PARVESH DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 14.2.2005 (Annexure P.8) declining the request made by the husband of the petitioner for grant of pension on the ground that he had rendered less than 10 years of qualifying service.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been working on the post of Sanskrit teacher in Samaj Kalyan High School Rohat (Sonepat). He was appointed on 18.12.1972 (Annexure P.4) as Sanskrit teacher as it had been a recognised aided school within the meaning of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 (for brevity 'the Act'). The petitioner rendered service upto 30.8.1994 in the afore-mentioned school which had been an aided and recognised institution. However, the school was taken over by the government w.e.f. 1.9.1994 (Annexure P.5). After taking over the petitioner could work only upto 30.6.2002 because he was declared permanently incapacitated for future service. According to the medical report submitted by the Special Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak, the husband of the petitioner has been found to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the department as Sanskrit master on account of the head injury suffered by him. The afore- mentioned incapacity was not caused by an irregular or intemperate habits of the petitioner as it had been certified by the Medical Board (Annexure P.1). Accordingly he was relieved from service on 4.6.2002 as per the record file produced before us. A copy of the relieving order is taken on record as Mark "A" and as such he was considered to have retired from service from 1.7.2002. When his case was sent for grant of pension, Accountant General-respondent No. 4, did not sanction any pension to him on the ground that he had worked as a government employee for a period of 7 years 10 months. However, the petitioner was granted death cum retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 39040/- in pursuance to order dated 10.5.2003 (Annexure P.2). The petitioner on behalf of her husband sent a legal notice dated 3.12.2004 (Annexure P.7) claiming invalid pension/family pension and gratuity by computing the service rendered by her husband in the Samaj Kalyan High School which was an aided school. The Accountant General-respondent No. 4 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 14.2.2004 by setting up the plea that death cum retirement gratuity/service gratuity is admissible to the retirees in accordance with the Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (for brevity 'the Rules'). It has further been asserted that the service rendered in aided school was not computable towards pensionary benefits/qualifying service as per Note 1 of Rule 3.16 of the Rules.

(3.) On 19.4.2006, we have heard the arguments in part and the hearing of the case was adjourned to produce the record which became necessary for the purposes of ascertaining whether any order of retirement in respect of the husband of the petitioner has been passed or not. When the case again came up for hearing on 21.4.2006 the record was eventually produced and there is no order showing that the petitioner has been formally retired. The order dated 4.6.2002 (Mark "A") simply relieves the petitioner from service by referring to the special report of the Medical Board dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure P.1).