TARA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Krishan Lal Bansal, husband of the petitioner, retired Superintendent from Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA') was previously employed with effect from 27.05.1965 in Director Urban Estate, Haryana, Panchkula, which was a pensionable job. Later on, he was sent on deputation to HUDA and was absorbed there on 30.09.1978. He superannuated from HUDA on 31.10.1997. The Haryana Government on account of his 13 years 4 months and 5 days services under the Director Urban Estate, Haryana, Panchkula, granted him pro rata pension vide Pension Payment Order dated 14.03.2001 (Annexure P-3). The husband of the petitioner expired on 29.11.2012. Now, family pension of the petitioner has been denied on account of instructions dated 11.05.1977 (Annexure P-1), which deals with the cases of the Haryana Government employees, who were transferred to other Government, Companies, Corporations, Boards, Municipal committees etc. The petitioner has claimed that the condition No.12A (viii) in the said instructions that the Government would have no liability for family pension in such cases, has been challenged that same is contrary to the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Petitioner claims that she is entitled to family pension.

(2.) No relief is claimed against HUDA. However, the State, in the reply, has taken the stand that as per instructions dated 11.05.1977 (Annexure P-1), the Government is not liable to pay the family pension.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.