RAM SAHAI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition pertains to the relief claimed by the petitioner for grant of pension/family pension to the petitioner whose son Late Bal Krishan Sharma had died while in service.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that that Late Bal Krishan Sharma son of the petitioner Was initially appointed on the post of Munshi in Public Works Department on 1.11.1973 and had completed 10 years of qualifying service satisfactorily as Munshi on 31.10.1983 and had thus become entitled for confirmation on the post of Munshi w.e.f. 31.10.1993. However, for reasons beyond control of the petitioner and due to inaction on the part of the Authorities of respondent department the petitioner's son, deceased employee, was no confirmed in service during his life time and he died on 22.6.1985. Subsequently the petitioner's son was confirmed on the post of Munshi vide order, dated 20.12.1986 w.e.f. 31.10.1983 vide Annexure 1. It has been further contended in the writ petition that since the son of the petitioner was not confirmed during his life time, he could not opt for pension and submit his option for pension. After confirmation in terms of the order vide Annexure 1, as referred to above, the petitioner herein, being the father of the deceased employee, applied in proper performate for grant of pension to him on account of death of his Late son and submitted the same before the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Dn. II, Bharatpur (respondent No. 4). It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 vide order, dated 22.12.1986 forwarded the option for pension performate duly filled in by the petitioner to the State Insurance Department with a view that the pension due on account of Late son of the petitioner be got sanctioned to his father, i.e., the petitioner herein. The Director, State Insurance Department informed the office of respondent No. 4 that the option form duly filled in by the father of the deceased employee could not be accepted and, therefore, the deceased employee is not entitled for pensionery benefits.

(3.) IT has been further contended in the petition that vide letter dated 27.6.1992, respondent No. 3 had asked respondent no. 4 to send the required performate without any delay with a view to take further action in the matter at the earliest. It wands further mentioned in the said communication that the petitioner's matter regarding granted of family pension could not be referred to the District Public Grievances Redsessal and Vigilance Committee, Bharatpur in absence of compliance of the aforesaid requirement. It was also mentioned in the said communication that the payment of all due claims have already been made to the petitioner and it was further indicated that the deceased employee is not entitled to any pension/family pension vide Annexures 3 and 4 respectively.