Nortidevi vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

M.R. Calla, J.—The petitioner is widow of one Kalyan son of Mool Chand who had been appointed on the post of Mason on 11th June, 1963 against a permanent post, as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner''s case is that while her husband was working under the Asstt. Engineer, City Sub-Division-III, PWD, Jaipur an office order was issued on 15th December, 1965 by which he was declared semi-permanent with effect from 11th June, 1965. In this order, the name of the petitioner''s husband appears at Sr. No. 2. This order has been placed on record as Annexure-1. The petitioner''s husband continued to work as semi-permanent employee till he expired on 11th May, 1975. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for pensionary benefits, but no relief was granted to her despite service of notice for demand of justice dated 26th September,1984. She made efforts to get the pensionary benefits, but a letter dated 30th September, 1985 was sent to the petitioner informing her that since her husband was made semi-permanent on 9th December, 1965 and he had expired on 11th May, 1975, he had not completed 10 years'' service and, therefore, he was not entitled to pension. This petitioner has submitted that in the year 1976, an order was issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, B&R, City Division-2, Jaipur mentioning the names of the work-charged employees who had completed 10 years of continuous service from the date of appointment. One Panna Lal (whose name appears at Sr. No. 12 in the order dated 15th December, 1965) has been shown to have completed 10 years'' service on 1st November, 1963 who had been appointed as workcharged employee on 1st November, 1963. According to the petitioner, similarly placed is the case of Bholu Ram son of Mangal who was initially appointed as Mason on 11th September, 1963 (appearing at Sr. No. 2 of order dated 15th December, 1965) has been shown in this order at Sr. No. 2 treating him to have completed 10 years'' continuous service on 11th September, 1973. The petitioner''s case is that both the employees were appointed subsequent to her husband inasmuch as her husband Kalyan was appointed 11th June, 1963, whereas these two incumbents were appointed as work-charged employees on 11th November, 1963 and 11th September, 1963. It is therefore contended that the petitioner''s husband had also completed 10 years service with effect from the date of his appointment as Mason i.e. 11th June, 1963.

In the reply which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the total case which has been setup against the petitioner''s claim is that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of 10 years'' service because the petitioner''s husband had expired on 11th May, 1975 and therefore, he did not complete 10 years'' of service from the date he was declared semi-permanent i.e. from 11th June, 1965.

It has not been disputed before me that the petitioner has been initially appointed on 11th June, 1963 and had completed 10 years'' service in the year 1973, much before the date on which he expired. It has been held by this Court that the service rendered as work-charged is also to be counted for pension (1986 RLR 24, Ismail Khan''s case). In this view of the matter, the petitioner''s husband had completed 10 years'' service in the year 1973 itself taking the initial date of his appointment as 11th June, 1963. There is no question of denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner in respect of the service rendered by her late husband on the ground that her husband had not completed 10 years'' service.

It has been pointed out by Shri Shyam Arya that the petitioner has already drawn the amount of the contributory rovident fund. The petitioner has amended the writ petition keeping in view this fact. The petitioner has stated that she is prepared to return the part of CPF received by her husband which was contributed by the Government and several cases have been decided by this Court, including the order dated 3rd March, 1986, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1487/1985, Smt. Ganga Devi v. State of Rajasthan, directions have been given to pay the pensionary benefits from the date they were otherwise payable after deducting the Government contribution.

It these circumstances, it is directed that the respondent shall start paying the family pension to the petitioner forth with and the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents after deducting the Government deduction from the amount of provident fund paid to the petitioner. Since arrears are to be paid to the petitioner and no interest is being awarded thereon in favour of the petitioner, I deem it proper not to give any direction with regard to charging of interest on the amount of the contribution made by the Government in the provident fund amount paid to the petitioner''s husband.

The writ petition is allowed as indicated above, with no order as to costs.