MOHINI DEVI Vs. RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to pass appropriate order accepting the option exercised by her husband Shri Nathu Singh, and she be paid the pension of her husband from 1.4.1992 till his death on 6.1.1994 and thereafter, family pension in petitioner's favour as per RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 as the petitioner 5 is ready to refund the employer's share of CPF together with its interest as may be calculated by the respondents or alternative the respondents be directed to adjust the said amount from the pensionary amount payable to the petitioner and respondents be also directed to make payment of outstanding pensionary amount with interest from 1.4.1992 till payment on 11 which refund of CPF is taken from the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that her husband was initially appointed as Driver in the respondent department and on attaining the age of superannuation vide order dated 14.10.91, issued by respondent No.2 the petitioner's husband was sought to retire from service 1 on 31.3.1992. Respondent No.2 issued regulations known as Rajasthan State Road Transport, Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 (for short the Regulations of 1989) which were made effective from 11.1.1993. Petitioner's husband exercised the option for grant of pension and offered that he is ready to refund the amount of CPF of the employer's share 2 along with accrued interest which may be worked out and advised that the same may be deposited. In para 3(1) of the Regulations of 1989, option has been described. In clause (m) the family has been defined, according to which the case of the present petitioner is fully covered. In para 29 of the Regulations of 1989, family pension has been provided to an employee of the 2 Corporation, which would be calculated on the similar lines as is being calculated to the families of Officer/employees of the State Government under the specific provisions of Govt. of Rajasthan Pension Rules, as amended from time to time. Petitioner's husband personally met the respondent authorities but with no result. Ultimately the petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice 3 dated 14.5.2001 but no reply was given of the same.

(3.) Aggrieved with the aforesaid inactions on the part of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner preferred the present petition before this Court.