Smt. Ganga Kanwar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—By this petition for writ, a direction is sought by the petitioner for respondents to allow her family pension being widow of late Shri Bheru Singh, who died on 02.07.1985 while in services of respondent Irrigation Department.

Facts necessary to be noticed are that late Shri Bheru Singh-husband of the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents as a work charge employee on 08.03.1969. Semi Permanent Status and Permanent Status were conferred to him on 28.03.1971 and 27.09.1979 respectively. After death of Shri Bheru Singh on 02.07.1985, appointment was given to his son Shri Bhanwar Singh on compassionate grounds and a payment in tune of Rs. 3092.50 was made to the petitioner against Contributory Provident Fund. By an application dated nil (Annexure 2), son of the present petitioner claimed family pension for his mother and that was forwarded to the competent authority i.e. The Assistant Director, State Insurance-cum-Provident Fund Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Assistant Director, State Insurance-cum-Provident Fund Department, Jaipur vide letter dated 25.10.1993, instructed the Assistant Engineer, IGNP, District I, Mahajan, Bikaner that pension can be given to the present petitioner, if she deposits State Government''s contribution relating to Provident Fund. The petitioner accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 1,458/- vide receipt No. C 000065/211664 dated 15.03.1995. The petitioner also completed all necessary formalities for the grant of family pension and she also opted for pension. A decision was also taken by the respondents to allow her pension, however, subsequent thereto, the joint Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Bikaner vide letter Annexure 12 conveyed that in light of the communication dated 23.01.2006 from the office of the Dy. Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Finance (Revenue), the pension case already settled earlier cannot be reopened. By an another communication dated 31.10.2006, it was also communicated to the petitioner that Shri Bheru Singh died on 02.07.1985 and as such the Circular dated 01.10.1986 relating to grant of pension after completion of 10 years of service and opting for pension at subsequent stage was not applicable to him. In the circumstances above, this petition for writ is preferred.

In reply to the writ petition, sole contention of the respondents is that husband of the petitioner was a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, as such he was not entitled for any pensionary benefits and for the same reason no family pension can be given to the present petitioner.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions.

It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner late Shri Bheru Singh entered in services of the respondents as a work charge employee on 08.03.1969 and Permanent Status was confirmed to him on 27.09.1979. Shri Bheru Singh died on 02.07.1985 i.e. after completing services for a term of more than 15 years. True it is, no option was given by Shri Bheru Singh for accepting pension in his life time as at that time, no opportunity in this regard was available to him. It is the position admitted that after death of Shri Bheru Singh, the present petitioner submitted an option form in prescribed proforma for pension and that was as per the instructions given by the Assistant Director, State Insurance-cum-Provident Fund Department. The petitioner also deposited the State Government''s contribution as per the directions given by the competent authority for receiving family pension. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for denying family pension to the petitioner. So far as the Circular dated 04.09.2006 (Annexure 13) is concerned, it certainly refers for grant of pension to the persons, who have completed 10 years pf service on opting the same and admittedly no option was submitted by Shri Bheru Singh before his death. As a matter of fact, there was no opportunity available to him to do so, as the circular in this regard was issued after his death. In such circumstances, the opportunity to opt for pension was availed by the present petitioner and once she was permitted to opt for pension, there was no ground available to the respondents to deny family pension to her, the petitioner. Besides, this Court in the case of Sujan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1991 WLR 340 held that an employee declared permanent under the Rajasthan "Work Charged Rules, 1964 is to be treated as a regular Government Servant and is entitled for all benefits for which a regular Government servant is entitled. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sujan Singh (supra), the petitioner''s husband is to be treated as Permanent government servant and on that count too, she is to be treated as a widow of regular government servant and, therefore, entitled for pensionary benefits as available to other regular government servants.

Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept the petitioner''s case for grant of family pension from the date of death of her husband late Shri Bheru Singh. The pensionary benefits accorded to the petitioner as a consequent to the directions above are to be applied and given to her within a period of three months from today, failing to which the petitioner shall further be entitled for interest @ 8.5% per annum on the amount due.

No order to cost.