LEELA DEVI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is widow of Panju Ram, a store-mate in the employment of respondents, who died in harness on 29.12.1992. It is the own plea of the respondents (Annexure P6) and also in para 8(iii) of the written statement that though he was initially functioning as Work charge employee, his services were regularised w.e.f. 11.3.1992. The deceased had otherwise been functioning on Work charge basis, without any interruption, from 28.3.1968 upto 10.3.1992.

(2.) The petitioner's claim for the grant of family pension is resisted by the respondents on the plea that he had worked only for a period of little more than nine months as a regular employee, whereas the rules require that the deceased ought to have put in one year regular service before his legal representatives become entitled to family pension.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court held in Smt. Shalini Devi v. The Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) and others, 2006 1 SCT 383 that :