PHULWANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to the respondents to pay family pension with effect from 1.12.1990 and for that purpose letter dated 19.1.1996 issued may be quashed and set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband was working with the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation. He died on 30.11.1990 and he as subscriber of the CPF and did not opt for pensionary benefits, therefore, in pursuance of notice sent through Advocate, the amount of CPF in the tune of Rs. 42,562/- was paid to the petitioner being widow of late Luna Ram.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner's husband was member of CPF scheme but, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Walu vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 106/2011, decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 5.9.2003, the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefit, therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as per the service record the husband of the petitioner was subscriber of Contributory Provident Fund and as per Regulation 17 of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Employees' Service Regulations it is admitted position of the case that the husband of the petitioner did not opt for pension, so also, after sending notice for demand of justice the petitioner was paid the amount of contributory fund in the year 1993 which is accepted by the petitioner, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Ramamurthy vs. Union of India & Anr., 1996 AIR(SC) 2658 and another judgment KRISHENA KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA, 1990 4 SCC 207, since the petitioner's husband who was member of CPF and had not opted for pension, the petitioner cannot claim pensionary benefits, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.