KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, namely Gopal Singh was serving as Range officer in the Forest Department, who died in harness while in service at the place of his posting on April 11, 1981, after putting in Govt. service continuously for a period of 26 years. At the time of death he was posted as Range Officer Mahore under the administrative control of Divisional Forest officer, Forest Division Reasi. Since the death of the government servant, the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to get the family pension under the rules permissible. She made an application for the grant of family pension in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Petitioner No. 2 also made an application being the son of the deceased government -servant for his appointments as a forester in terms of SRO l04 and SRO 122 of 1983, for which he is qualified but to no result. Even the Govt. failed to make the payment of GP Fund, Gratuity etc. to which the petitioners are entitled since 1981 giving rise to the present petition.

(2.) - It is further alleged that the petitioners awaited for the grant of benefits right from 1981, despite their repeated requests made to the respondents, hence filed this petition in April 1987, praying for a writ of Mandamus for petition to the respondents to pay all the dues to the petitioners towards gratuity, G. P. Fund, insurance claim and family pension with a further relief that since petitioner No. 2 is fully qualified to be appointed as a Forster in accordance with the J&K Forest Service -Non - Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 1970, and in terms of SRO 184 of 1977 and SRO 122 of 1983, it be directed that he be appointed on account of the vacancy accrued due to the death of his father while in service.

(3.) - Respondents 1 to 4 contested the petition raising the plea that the benefits prayed for were not granted because of the fact that there were certain recoveries against the deceased Gopal Singh Range officer to the tune of Rs. 1,02.260. 63. In so for as the claim of G. P. Fund is concerned it has been admitted that the same is settled and the Legal heirs of the deceased have received the said amount which was due. This fact is also not denied by learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing the case. Regarding appointment of petitioner 2. respondents have submitted that so long as the amount which was outstanding against the father of the petitioner No. 2 is not liquidated he is not entitled to get the benefit of the SROs and the could not be appointed due to the said reason. It has been admitted that as per advice of liquidating the outstanding amount petitioner No. 2 deposited Rs. 23,000. - with the department and can be considered for appointment only on liquidating the rest of the balance pmount which he has failed to do till date.