DEVBANTI NEGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dtd. 29/2/2020, passed by respondent No.3-Managing Director, HP State Electronic Development Corporation (in short "the respondent-corporation"), whereby representations having been filed by the petitioners herein in terms of order dtd. 3/4/2019, passed by the HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3018 of 2018, praying therein to grant family pension in her favour in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4998 of 2010, Bimla Devi v. State of HP and ors, decided on 4/1/2021, further upheld by the Honble Apex Court vide judgment dtd. 1/7/2013, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, i.e. husband of petitioner No.1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3, was appointed as Computer Operator with the respondent-corporation on 16/3/1988 and since then, he had been rendering his services in the respondent-corporation till 26/10/2002, when he died while on official tour to Kullu. Government of Himachal Pradesh notified Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme 1999 (in short "the HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999") vide notification No. Fin-IF(C)1- 9/97 dtd. 29/10/1999. As per the aforesaid HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, all pensionary benefits of the employees of the participating HP Corporate Sector were to be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended and adopted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the State Government employees. As per the first proviso to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 2 of HP Corporate Pension Scheme 1999, governing body/board of directors of corporate bodies were required to provide in their respective byelaws/rule/regulations governing their conditions of service by amending respective service byelaws/rules regulations that pension, family pension and commutation of pension and Gratuity shall be under the scheme. Though aforesaid HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, had come in force w.e.f. 1/4/1999, but respondent corporation incorporated aforesaid pension scheme in respective byelaws/rules/regulations in the year, 2018. Aforesaid HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 was subsequently repealed by the State vide notification No. Fin-IF (c)1-9/97-iv dtd. 2/12/2004. As per the repealed notification dtd. 2/12/2004, employee retired from service w.e.f. 1/4/1999 to the date of publication of notification dtd. 2/12/2004, shall continue to be governed under the provisions of the repealed scheme and have otherwise become eligible for pension under the scheme. However, it is not in dispute that there was specific provision made in the repealed notification dtd. 2/12/2004, with regard to grant of family pension to the employees, who died within the period w.e.f. 1/4/1999 to 2/12/2004. Mr. Jagat Singh Negi, expired on 26/10/2002, while in service and during this period, HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 was in operation, though was not incorporated by the respondent corporation its bye laws/rules as was required to be done in terms of first proviso to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 2 of HP Corporate Pension Scheme 1999. Though respondent-corporation paid all the pensionary benefits as admissible under EPF Act, 1952, but refused to grant family pension in favour of the petitioner No.1 being wife of late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, who died in harness in the year, 2002, despite there being specific provision with regard to family pension contained in the HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999. Though aforesaid Scheme was repealed vide government notification dtd. 2/12/2004, but as per repealed notification dtd. 2/12/2004, employees retired from the service w.e.f. 1/4/1999 till the publication of such notification i.e. 2/12/2004 were to be governed under the provisions of repealed Scheme i.e. the HP Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, provided such retired employees have/had opted for such scheme and had otherwise become eligible for pension under the scheme.

(3.) Being aggrieved on account of refusal on the part of the respondent-corporation to grant family pension in favour of petitioner No.1, after the death of her husband, late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, petitioner filed OA No. 3018 of 2018 before the HP State Administrative Tribunal, praying therein for release of retiral benefits of her late husband.