KRISHNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a widow of an ex-employee of the respondents has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing Order 21.4.2006 (P-5) declining her claim for grant of family pension. It has further been that direction be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of pension and all consequential benefits.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher with effect from 14.10.1968. His services were regularised with effect from 1.4.1979. After about six months he unfortunately died on 19.10.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was given exgratia appointment on the post of Peon and she is working as water carrier at Government High School, Bainsi, District Rohtak. No family pension has been granted to the petitioner. It is claimed that in the year 1983-84 she had given papers to some advocate for filing family pension case but the same was not filed. On 30.5.2005, a legal notice was sent (P-2) followed by C.W.P. No. 11340 of 2005 in this Court seeking direction for grant of family pension. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice by treating the same as a representation within a period of four months. It is appropriate to mention here that learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that if she succeeds. she would claim only arrears of 38 months from the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner also filed contempt petition bearing C.O. C.P. No. 1481 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order 31.10.2006 as the respondents have passed an order dated 21.4.2006 in the meanwhile rejecting her claim which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Her claim has been rejected primarily on the ground that prior to regularisation of his service on 1.4.1979. the husband of the petitioner was working on six months basis and he expired on 19.10.1979. It is therefore pleaded that this service is not reckoned for family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.

(3.) The petitioner has placed reliance on the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, which has come into force 1.7.1964 for the grant of family pension to her. The aforementioned Scheme is claimed to be applicable to all employees on pensionable establishments, temporary or permanent, who were in service on 1.7.1964 or were recruited thereafter. She has placed firm reliance on Clause's 3 and 4 of the Scheme to contend that the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 (P-5) is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rati Ram v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 4857 of 1994 decided on 24.5.1995) and Om Pati v. State of Haryana, 2007 2 SLR 289 (Pb. & Hry.)].