LAWS(P&H)-2008-10-142

RAJBALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On October 04, 2008
RAJBALA Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ petition is seeking directions to the respondents to grant and release family pension to her along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner is widow of Late Shri Raj Kumar, an employee of the Department of Public Heath, who was appointed as a Sewerman on daily wage basis in April, 1993. He continued to work as such when he unfortunately expired on 11.4.2002 while performing his duties. At that time, he had completed 9 years of continuous service without any break with the respondent-Department. On the death of her husband, the petitioner preferred a representation requesting therein for grant of family pension as per the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 as contained in Appendix I in Chapter XV of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (as applicable to Haryana) Vol. II part I (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Scheme). When no response was received from the department, the petitioner through her counsel gave a notice on 19.6.2005 claiming therein family pension as per the 1964 Scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10978 of 2005 titled as Rajbala v. State of Haryana and others Vide order dated 21.7.2005, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the legal notice and pass a speaking order thereon. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the order dated 7.1.2006 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Division No. 2, Sonepat-respondent No. 4 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that as per Rule 3.12 of Vo. II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (as applicable to State of Haryana), her husband-deceased Raj Kumar did not fulfill the conditions being a daily wage employee. The said order dated 7.1.2006 (Annexure P-2) has now been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that she is entitled for the grant of family pension as per the 1964 Scheme. It has further been submitted that this Court in case of Usha Rani v. State of Haryana, 2005 1 SCT 410 which was also a case of daily wage employee, while considering the 1964 Scheme, ordered for grant of the family pension. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by this judgment.

(3.) Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have put in appearance and have submitted that since the husband of the petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee as per the requirement of the site/work, the claim of the petitioner is not covered under the 1964 Scheme. It is further contended that the petitioner had submitted her claim under the Workmen Compensation Act and the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Sonepat, has allowed the claim for a sum of Rs. 3.85 lacs. The said amount has been deposited by the respondents before the Commissioner at Sonepat.