STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.96 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and directed the respondents to revise the family pension of the petitioners giving them the benefit of Special Pensionary Allowance from the date the family pension became due after the death of the deceased employee, after deducting the amount already paid to them. The respondent -appellants were further directed to give the same benefit to all the other similarly situated persons although they have not approached this Court.

(2.) LATE (Shri) Monohar Lal was employed as a Police Constable in the Police Department in Pali district. On 27.1.68, an information was received through one Mukhbir. The Police Party consisting of the Police Officials and Constables, including deceased Manohar Lal, in a jeep, went on police raid. During the raid, the jeep, in which the police party was travelling, met with an accident and Manohar Lal died. The legal representatives and dependants of deceased Manohar Lal were granted the family pension. Smt. Urmila - the widow of the deceased was granted the family pension of Rs. 40/ - per month while the two sons of the deceased, viz., Shashi Kant and Kunj Bihari, were granted Rs. 5/ - per month each as the family pension. The two sons, in whose favour though the family pension was sanctioned but they were not paid any amount towards the family pension while Smt. Urmila - the widow of the deceased - was getting the family pension of Rs. 576/ - per month including the dearness allowance. The case of the petitioners further is that though the petitioners were entitled for the Special Pensionary benefits as per Chapter XXIII -B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as the husband of petitioner No. 1 died while discharging the official duties but this benefit was not granted to the petitioners. Smt. Urmila, Shashi Kant and Kunj Bihari, therefore, filed the writ petition praying therein that the respondents may be directed to revise the family pension in accordance with Rule 268 -I of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951'). The writ petition filed by the petitioners was opposed by the respondents on the grounds that (i) the benefit of special pension is not available to the petitioners; and (ii) the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained latches and delay on their part in approaching the Court. The learned Single Judge, by His judgment dated 20.2.96, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and directed the respondents to pay special pension to the petitioners. It is against this judgment dated 20.2.96 that the State and others have preferred this appeal.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants.