Smt. Saraswati Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

The husband of the petitioner late Mr. Ram Singh, was engaged as Beldar on a daily wage basis with the respondents on 01.07.1980 in respondents

department Richi-Vinlekh-Bhujan Motor Road, District Almora.

It is the case of the petitioner that after having worked satisfactorily on daily wage basis his services were brought into the work charge

establishment on 01.01.1986 thereafter he worked in the respondents department in the work charge establishment. The office of the Respondent

No.5 i.e. Executive Engineer Provincial Division, P.W.D., Almora, passed an order on 31.03.2015 directing to regularize the service of the employees

working in the work charge establishment, the said order was passed by Respondent No.5 in compliance of judgment passed by this Court. The

respondents held a meeting of Committee for Regularization headed by Chief Engineer on 06.02.2015 and the meeting in continuation thereof on

02.03.2015, the services of the husband of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 24.08.1999.

The name of late husband of the petitioner appears at Serial No.218 of the said list. The regularization of services of the petitioner’s husband

was made much after his retirement, as he had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband has worked in the respondents department as Beldar

from 01.01.1986 in a work charge establishement and thereafter 24.08.1999 after regularization up to the attainment of age of superannuation on

31.07.2010 i.e. for about 11-1/2 years and after the death of the husband, the petitioner contends that she is entitled to get pension for the period from

31.07.2010 to 25.09.2014 i.e. the date on which the husband died and thereafter from 26.09.2014 onwards, she was accordingly entitled for the family

pension and all other consequential benefits and arrears of gratuity etc. After having learnt about the order of regularization of the services of the

husband being made by the order dated 31.03.2015 w.e.f. 24.08.1999 i.e. after the death of her husband, the petitioner contends that she had

submitted her representation before the respondents on 21.05.2018. On the representation of the petitioner, she was issued a letter by the office of the

Executive Engineer on 16.12.2016, calling upon her to appear for a meeting for the settlement of the retiral dues of her husband and the family pension

payable to her.

It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2016, she has supplied all the documents as required to enable the

respondent to settle the arrears of pension and the family pension of the petitioner. What is borne out from record is that the Executive Engineer after

assigning the employee’s code to the late husband of the petitioner, Mr. Ram Singh as Ty.Id-D370142280817E0001 has made a reference to the

directorate of treasury to open the employee’s code so as to enable him to complete the process of settlement of pensionary benefits and family

pension payable to the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner’s case is that she has submitted a representation dated 21.05.2018 to all the

respondents for grant pension, family pension and other monetary benefits including arrears of gratuity but the same has not been decided.

It is an admitted case that after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner on 31.       07.2010 as Beldar from the work charge

establishment, the Respondent No.5 vide his order dated 18.11.2011 had granted gratuity to the amount of Rs.88,935/-to the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is entitled for getting the arrears of gratuity after the regularization of the services of her late husband w.e.f.

24.08.1999 by virtue of the order dated 31.03.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to the belated regularization made of the services of late husband by the order dated

31.03.2015 and also because of the belated payment of gratuity, the petitioner, made a request before respondent no.5 to supply certain documents

pertaining to the service details of the husband but despite of the representation dated 01.05.2018 and reminder to the said effect on 21.05.2018, the

retiral benefits are not being paid to the petitioner and consequently she is also deprived of the pension w.e.f. 31.07.2010 and family pension w.e.f.

26.09.2014. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents grant pension from 31.07.2010 to 25.09.2014 and

family pension as well as other consequential benefits including the arrears of gratuity to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f.

26.09.2014.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.â€​

Admittedly, what is reflected from the order is that after having put in work in the work charge establishment as having retired in 31.07.2010. The

services thus rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment since 01.01.1986 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010 has

to be included and considered for the purposes of determination of pensionary benefits, as to be the qualifying period and accordingly, the pension was

payable to late husband of the petitioner keeping in view the judgment as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Habib Khan’s case as well

as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 26.04.2018, whereby, it has been held out based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

that the services of an employee rendered in the work charge establishment has to be included together for grant of pensionary benefits. The writ

petition was heard at admission stage in the presence of learned Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. N.P. Sah.

The fact that the controversy stands settled by the judgment of the Habib Khan’s case as well as the judgment of the Division Bench has been

candidly admitted by the Standing Counsel who submits that the controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

Hence this writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits for the period 31.07.2010 to

25.09.2014 i.e. till the date of death of the husband of the petitioner and thereafter family pension since 25.09.2014 and to continue to pay the same till

legally entitled thereafter.

The respondents are directed to comply the aforesaid directions within a period of six weeks from today. At this stage, learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks to reserve his rights to file a writ petition afresh in case, if need arises, if there is denial of the benefit as directed by this Court.

13.Subject to the above observation, writ petition is allowed. However, there would be no order as to costs.