RATNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dtd. 12/3/2020 (Annexure P-6), passed by the respondents, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected on the ground that her husband, who was working as a Fitter, a Class-III post, and retired from Government service, on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30/6/2002, had rendered only 8 years' and 6 months' of regular service including work charge service, which is less than 10 years' of qualifying service for becoming entitled to pension as required under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; and further, the weightage of 1 year of service for every five years of daily waged service rendered as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, is applicable only to Class-IV employees. Since the husband of the petitioner was a Class-III employee, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 is not applicable in her case and thus rejected her claim for pension.

(2.) The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that her husband was appointed as Fitter in the year 1974, on daily wage basis. His services were to be regularized after completion of 10 years' of service, but the respondents regularized his services on 30/12/1994 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 1/1/1994. After putting 28 years' services, the husband of the petitioner, retired on 30/6/2002. The husband of the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years' service with the respondents and thus entitled to pension. The petitioner's husband has died on 21/6/2012 (Annexure P-3). The rejection of claim of the petitioner for family pension, is totally untenable.

(3.) The respondents filed reply to the petition and reiterated that since the husband of the petitioner had not completed 10 years' of service, including daily wage service, the order under challenge was rightly passed and does not require any interference. Further the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh's case is applicable only to Class-IV employee and since the husband of the petitioner was Class-III employee, he was not entitled to the benefit of the judgment.