BASO DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner the pension/family pension from which date she became entitled. The validity of Sub -Rule (6) of the Rule 22 -A of the Rajasthan Workcharged Employees Services Rules, 1964 (for short 1964 Rules) has also been called in question.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the husband of the petitioner late Mitthan Lal was initially appointed as Helper Grade -I on, muster roll basis in the year 1960. Thereafter vide order dated 18.3.1963 he was taken on work charged basis as Helper Grade -I. While he was working on Well No. 8 at Mallah under Assistant Engineer City Division Bharatpur, he suffered electric shock and fell in the well and died on 27.4.1970. The petitioner served a notice for demand of justice through her counsel on 16.1.1992 on the respondents. The Executive Engineer PHED, City Division Bharatpur vide letter dated 21.3.1992 informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 120/ - relating to Contributory Provident Fund had already been paid to the mother of the deceased Smt. Chameli Devi, the petitioner was not entitled for any family pension as per the provisions of Rule 22 -A of the 1964 Rules. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that after marriage the wife automatically became the nominee in place of any other nominee. Therefore even if the amount of Contributory Provident Fund was paid to the mother in law of the petitioner, the petitioner was still the legal nominee of the deceased. The purpose of giving pension is to provide financial assistance to the family of the deceased in order to absolve them from the financial crises. The petitioner further averred that by putting rider under Sub -Rule (6) of Rule 22 -A of 1964 Rules is totally unjustified, illegal and arbitrary, has got no reasonable nexus. By putting the rider of dated 1.9.1982 the dependents of the deceased had been divided in two different classes one where the Government employees died before 1.9.1982 and the second where the employees died after 1.9.1982 and this date has no nexus whatsoever with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore it deserves to be struck down.