Bismillah vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

Late Shri Farid Khan entered in the services of erstwhile Jodhpur State on 17.10.1946 and on merger of the State of Jodhpur with the State of Rajasthan, he became an employee of the State of Rajasthan. His service came to be absorbed with the services under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 25.10.1972, wherefrom he retired on 14.11.1973. On 21.1.1977, by Notification dated 31.1.1977, the Government of Rajasthan invited options from the work charged employees taken on regular cadre to switch over to the provisions of pension, as per the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner considering himself a Government servant made a request on 30.4.1977 to switch over to the provisions for pension from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Shri Farid Khan unfortunately died on 13.10.1979. The appellant widow of Shri Farid Khan received amount of Contributory Provident Fund in February, 1991. After receiving the Contributory Provident Fund, she approached this Court by way of filing petition for writ to claim pensionary benefits in pursuance to the option said to be exercised by her husband as per notification dated 31.1.1977.

The case of the petitioner before learned writ Court was that her husband Shri Fared Khan opted for pension in pursuant to the Notification dated 31.1.1977, therefore, she should have been allowed Family pension and also all the arrears pertaining to the pension that would have been given to her husband. Learned Single Bench after examining the notification dated 31.1.1977, arrived at the conclusion that the same is having application for the work-charge employees and the Government servants who remained work charged employee at one point of time and not to the other Government servants. Learned Single Bench, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for Family Pension and arrears of pension pertaining to her husband, allowed ex-gratia payment in light of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Retirement Contributory Provident Fund Holders Association Jodhpur v. the State of Rajasthan reported in WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 32.

In appeal the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that notification dated 31.1.1977 in quite specific terms refers to "Government Servant" and, Late Shri Farid Khan remained a Government servant before permanent absorption of his service with Rajasthan State Electricity Board, thus, the notification dated 31.1.1977 is having absolute application in the instant matter.

We have considered the arguments advanced and examined the notification dated 31.1.1977.

The subject matter of the notification dated 31.1.1977 is "counting of work-charged service for pension on regular absorption/appointment of work-charged employees on regular post under Government". The notification gives a clarification also that the existing provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not allow to take into consideration the services rendered in work charged cadre by the employees who were/are taken on regular cadre of the Government service and that was causing concern while computing necessary qualifying service to award pension. Looking to it, a decision was taken to give an opportunity to opt for pension to the employees who are absorbed/appointed on regular cader post on conversion of work charge post into regular cader post. Para 1 to 5 of the notification aforesaid, in specific terms refers its application for work charged employees only. In para 6 reference of "Government Servants", is given and that reads as under:

"Government servants, who have retired between the date of absorption/appointment and the issue of these orders and received their retirement benefits as admissible under the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, shall also be entitled to exercise option for pension and their retirement benefits already paid to them shall be adjusted against the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and pension admissible under the Rajasthan Service Rules; and they shall not be asked to refund the retirement benefits already received by them along with interest thereon for the intervening period i.e. for the period from the date of receipt of retirement benefits under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and issue of pension under this order."

The notification aforesaid is required to be read with reference to its subject and the context for which it was issued. The term is required to be read in light of the object of the notification dated 31.1.1977, which relates to cure grievance of the work charge employees. The notification was issued only with a view to include the work charge service in total service rendered by a Government servant to compute qualifying services necessary for grant of pension. The term "Government servant" used in para 6 of the notification dated 31.1.1977 clearly indicates those employees who were earlier member of work charge cadre.

Learned counsel for the appellant has cited certain judgment before us to substantiate his other arguments that even if late husband of the appellant would have not opted for pension then too in the light of the law laid down by this Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, pension and family pension should have been extended to her husband and herself respectively. On examination of the facts of the case, we do not find any of the judgment having any application in the instant matter, as such, those are not required to be referred.

We do not find any error with the judgment impugned, hence, the appeal is dismissed.