Smt. Malti Choubey vs The State of M.P. and Others

Hon''ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi

The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought a direction against the respondents to grant the benefit of family pension to the petitioner on account of untimely death of her husband, who was working as Timekeeper in the work charged contingency establishment of respondents, after his regularisation. It is contended that initially the husband of the petitioner was engaged as a muster roll educated labour with effect from 1.12.1979 under the respondent No. 3. He was continuously working when his case was screened for the purposes of regularisation in the work charged contingency establishment of the respondents and vide order dated 29.12.1988, the husband of the petitioner was regularised as Timekeeper in the aforesaid establishment. However, the husband of the petitioner died at the age of 45 years on 3.12.1996. The petitioner thereafter sought order for payment of the family pension. However, such a relief claimed by the petitioner was denied by the respondents, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed. It is contended that in terms of the instructions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12150/2006(s) filed by the petitioner, it was necessary on the part of respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Employees (Pension) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity) and, if, the benefit of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules is extended to the husband of the petitioner, for the purposes of counting the services rendered by him prior to his regularisation in the muster roll, the husband of the petitioner would have been entitled to grant of pension and, accordingly, the petitioner would have been granted the benefit of family pension. However, since by impugned order such a claim of the petitioner has been rejected, this writ petition is required to be filed. The respondents have contended in their return that the case of the petitioner was properly considered and it was found that the husband of the petitioner has not completed 10 years of requisite service after the regularisation on the post of Timekeeper, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the grant of family pension. It is contended in the return that in case an employee has not completed requisite 10 years of services, as prescribed in the Rules referred to herein above, the person concerned would not be entitled to grant of pension and, accordingly, no family pension is to be paid to the dependent of such an employee. In view of this, it is contended that the entire claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. The order passed in this respect was intimated to the petitioner and, as such, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The law in this respect has been well settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Others, wherein it has been categorically held by this Court that if the period of service is to be counted, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules aforesaid, the previous services rendered as muster roll employees are required to be counted and then it has to be assessed whether an incumbent regularised subsequently in the work charged contingency establishment would be entitled to grant of pension or not. This Court in the case of Smt. Shyama Bai Vs. State of M.P. and Others , has laid down the similar provisions of law in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra). Various other petitions have been decide by this Court by passing the orders on different dates, a well reasoned order has been passed in Writ Petition(s) No. 2698/2003, Lallan Bai Vs. State of M.P. and two others, on 17.11.2004. All these aspects have been duly considered, the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules aforesaid as also the Rule 47 of the Rules where the contributory family pension is prescribed, have been interpreted by this Court, and it has been held that such employees would not only be entitled to grant of regular pension as per the Rules aforesaid, but the dependent would also be entitled to grant of family pension. These provisions again have been looked into by this Court in the case of Rahisha Begum Vs. State of M.P. and others,

In view of the law well settled by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the respondent-authorities were not correct in refusing to grant family pension to the petitioner. One more aspect is that even if the employee concerned has not completed the requisite years of service, the family pension would not be denied to the dependent only on this count as there is no prescription of specific period of service for the purposes of grant of family pension made in the Rules. This being so, the entire consideration as done by the respondents in the matter of grant of family pension to the petitioner cannot be said to be just and proper. Accordingly, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to prepare the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension from the date of death of her husband and to pay the entire arrears of family pension to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date the family pension was due to the petitioner till the date of realisation, within a period of three months from the date of order passed today. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.