SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is wife of late Lehri Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") on 27. 2. 1996 against the respondents with the prayers that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to compute the family pension and gratuity of the petitioner's husband by treating him to be in service from 30. 1. 1982 and pay her all arrears and other consequential benefits etc. etc.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:- THE deceased was initially appointed as a part time employee after being regularly selected by regular process of selection for a period of 8 months vide order dated 30. 1. 1982 (Annex. 1 ). THE services of the deceased were later-on regularised on the post of Class IV employee and thus, he was given regular pay scale of Class IV employee through order Annex. 2 dated 1. 10. 1991. THE petitioner's husband (deceased), after serving more than 13 years in the Department of the respondents, expired on 26. 10. 1995, a copy of death certificate is marked as Annex. 4. THE case of the petitioner is that total service rendered by her husband (deceased) i. e. from 30. 1. 1982 upto his death on 26. 10. 1995 should be taken into consideration for purposes of computing the pension, but to the utter surprise, the respondents took into account the service period of the petitioner's husband from 1. 10. 1991, the date on which petitioner's husband was given regular appointment on the post of Class IV employee. According to the petitioner, the period during which deceased worked as part time worker should also be counted towards the post retirement benefits.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that deceased died on 26. 10. 1995 and during the life time of the deceased, there was no dispute about regularisation of services of the deceased and for the first time, after the death of the deceased, when family pension and other benefits were given to the petitioner, the petitioner raised the dispute that the services rendered by her husband (deceased) from 30. 1. 1982 to 1. 10. 1991 should also be counted for the purposes of computing pension etc.