USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who had initially joined as Lady Education Organiser in September 1959 and had been holding number of posts such as Lady Nutrition Extension Officer in Panchayat Samiti Sawai Madhopur from 1965 to 1979 and again in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. She was transferred to the Directorate of Women, Child and Nutrition Department in the year 1986. She had attained the age of superannuation and was, therefore, superannuated on 30. 6. 1988 vide Annexure-4. Ever since her retirement in the year 1988, her retiral benefits including pension have not been decided. It is stated by the petitioner that even though about a period of 10 years had passed and despite the fact that she had been running from pillar to post to get her case decided, she had to meet the cold attitude of the departmental authorities. Her husband who was heart patient and suffered paralysis also died in January 1993. She could not arrange proper treatment for her husband. She has attached the representations made as Annexures 5, 6 and 7. She did receive some reply vide Annexures 8, 9 and 10. Annexure 8 has been issued by the Child Development Project Officer whereby he has asked for certain record from certain officer. Similarly vide other latter efforts were being made by one or the other office with a request to send the record so that the pension matter be decided.

(2.) WRITTEN statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is admitted that the petitioner had retired in June, 1988. It is stated that the answering respondents have been writing to the concerned Panchayat Samiti etc. for sending the service record of the petitioner for preparation of the pension case and for the reason that certain leave was not regularised by the department and the matter was pending consideration, no pension was finalised. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had clearly pleaded in para 7 that the delay has been caused because of the non- action of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the pension case has now been decided o n ly when the court had directed the responsible officer to file the affidavit causing the delay of pension and thus the petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed pension and other retrial benefits.