MARMAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ex -serviceman, who had served during emergency in the armed forces and had subsequently retired from the post of a J.B.T Teacher died fighting for his claim to earn pension. His wife now is seeking the same relief through the present writ petition. The husband of the petitioner, late Shri Shiv Lal served in the armed forces from 1.1.1963 to 10.1.1968. This service was during the National emergency. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner was selected as JBT teacher on 31.11.1996 and joined as such on 4.12.1990. He retired from the post of teacher on 31.5.1996. After his retirement, the pension payable to the husband of the petitioner was not released. He had to thus file various representations. The husband of the petitioner also represented that his service rendered in the Army be counted for the purpose of pension with the service rendered by him as JBT teacher.

(2.) THE late husband of the petitioner might have had some hope when respondent No. 2 had forwarded a copy of communication dated 28.10.1993 to Sub Divisional Educational Officer directing him that the military service rendered by the husband of the petitioner would qualify for the purpose of pension. It was also mentioned that the period during which he had remained out of service after being relieved from Military service will be treated to have been condoned under Rule 4 of the Punjab National Emergency Concession Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). On 22.5.1997, the husband of the petitioner, thus, deposited an amount of Rs. 1675/ -of gratuity paid to him for service rendered in military. Having done so he was awaiting for the release of the pension and pensionary benefits. Nothing, however, came from the side of the respondents. On 14.7.1999, husband of the petitioner died awaiting for the pension. Thereafter the petitioner started pursuing the case for grant of pension. It is in this background, she filed writ petition before this Court.

(3.) THE respondents, on the other hand, by relying upon the above condition, would urge that the period of service rendered by husband of the petitioner in the Military can not to be counted for the grant of pension. It is also pointed out that the husband of the petitioner was getting a military service pension and after his death the petitioner is getting a family pension. It is stated that gap period from the date of discharge from the military service and the date of appointment in the Government service is about two years and, thus, military service benefit can not be granted to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the husband of the petitioner has served the department for less than 10 years and hence, pension is not admissible to him.