NORTIDEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is widow of one Kalyan Son of Mool Chand who had been appointed on the post of Mason on 11. 06. 1963 against a permanent post, as alleged in the writ petition. THE petitioner's case is that while her husband was working under the Asstt. Engineer, City Sub-Division III, PWD, Jaipur an office order was issued on 15. 12. 1965 by which he was declared semi-permanent with effect from 11. 06. 1965. In this order, the name of the petitioner's husband appears at Sr. No. 2. This order has been placed on record as Annexure-1. THE petitioner's husband continued to work as semi-permanent employee till he expired on 11. 05. 1975. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for pensionary benefits, but no relief was granted to her despite service of notice for demand of justice dated 26. 09. 1984. She made efforts to get the pensionary benefits, but a letter dated 30th September 1985 was sent to the petitioner informing her that since her husband was made semi-permanent on 9. 12. 1965 and he had expried on 11. 05. 1975 he had not completed 10 years service and, therefore, he was not entitled to pension. THE petitioner has submitted that in the year 1976, an order was issued by the Executive, Engineer,pwd, B&r, City Division 2, Jaipur mentioning the names of the work-charged employees who had completed 10 years of continuous service from the date of appointment. One Panna Lal (Whose name appears at Sr. No. 12 in the order dated 15. 12. 1965) has been show to have completed 10 years' service on 1. 11. 1963 who had been appointed as work charged employees on 1. 11. 1963. According to the petitioner, similarly placed is the case of Bholu Ram son of Mangal who was initially appointed as Mason on ll. 09. 1963 (appearing at Sr. No. 2 of order dated 15. 12. 1965) has been shown in this order atsr. No. 2 treating him to have completed 10 years' continuous service on ll. 09. 1973. THE petitioner's case is that both the employees were appointed subsequent to her husband inasmuch as her husband Kalyan was appointed on ll. 06. 1963 whereas these two incumbents were appoined as work-charged employees on ll. 11. 1963 and ll. 09. 1963. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner's husband had also completed 10 year's service with effect from the date of his appointment as Mason i. e. ll. 06. 1963.

(2.) IN the reply which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the total case which has been set up against the petitioner's claim is that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of 10 years service because the petitioner's husband had expired on ll. 05. 1975 and therefore, he did not complete 10 years of service from the date he was declared semi-permanent i. e. from ll. 06. 1965.