INDIRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this petition is the order dated 04th March, 1991 whereby the petitioner's husband was dismissed from service. It has been prayed that the said order be quashed and set aside and consequently directions may be issued to the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondents be further directed to grant family pension to the petitioner in accordance with the proviso to Rule 268-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

(2.) FACTS in brief as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner's husband was appointed in the service of respondents as LDC vide order dated 04th September, 1979 on temporary basis and he was subsequently made permanent by order dated 19th June, 1981. The petitioner's husband was some time in the year 1985 transferred from the office of District Collector, Pali to the office of District Collector, Pali to the office of District Collector, Jodhpur. In the aforesaid manner the petitioner's husband continued to serve the respondents till 1988. It has been stated that the petitioner's husband left his office on 06th February, 1988. He thereafter never returned back home. Nothing was heard about him by the petitioner or any one of the her family members nor were his whereabouts known. It has been asserted that on account of illiteracy and the things having happened so fast, the petitioner did not retain copy of application submitted by her to the respondents. It has been stated that on efforts being made by colleagues of the petitioner's husband, the District Collector, Jodhpur started paying to petitioner an ex gratia payment of Rs. 100/- per month which continued for about five months. The petitioner submitted an application in the year 1990 requesting that she be given appointment on compassionate ground in place of her husband whose whereabouts were not known. The application was however, rejected by order dated 14th September, 1990. When the petitioner prayed for family pension, the District Collector, Jodhpur by order dated 31st July, 1995 required her to submit copy of the First Information Report lodged regarding missing of her husband. The petitioner however stated that refusal by the respondents for family pension was contrary to proviso of Rule 268-B of the Rajasthan Service rules which is reproduced as under:- " Provided further that if a Government servant is unheard of for more than a period of one year the family pension at the rate prescribed under Rule 268-C shall be sanctioned and authorized to the member of his/her family as defined under Rule 268-D on submission of an application along with Indemnity Bond and Affidavit in the prescribed form and also a copy of F. I. R. lodged with the Police about the dis-appearance of the Government servant. If in any case, the Government servant subsequently re- appears the family pension shall immediately cease to be admissible and payable. The amount of family pension already paid to the family, shall be recoverable from the salary of the Government servant. "

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner being illiterate could not earlier approach this Court inasmuch as she had been regularly representing to the respondents for redressal of her grievances. The respondents however, on technical grounds refused to either sanction family pension to her or consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. The disciplinary proceedings against husband of the petitioner were conducted ex parte and no notice of those proceedings was served either on the petitioner or any of her legal heirs. Such proceedings conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice were void in law and consequently the order of dismissal passed on the basis of such proceedings was also illegal.