State and Others vs Smt. Ratan Kanwar

R. Balia, J.—This special appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 399 of 1990, filed by Smt. Ratan Kanwar Mehta, dated 12.2.1990. The petitioner''s husband was in the services of erstwhile Marwar State, before the formation of State of Rajasthan and then became an employee of the State of Rajasthan. He was a member of Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund. The husband of the appellant-petitioner died while in service on 3.8.1961, before exercising option for pension under the Rajasthan Service Rules.

After the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders Association, the Government of Rajasthan issued a memorandum giving option to all members of Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund who had retired from service, without exercising option, to opt for pension, on 17.10.1 987. However, under the said memorandum, option, was not extended to widows of such members. Later on, a Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj v. State of Rajasthan RLW 1989(1) 347 has taken the view that widows of holders of erstwhile Provident Fund are also entitled to the benefit under the aforesaid memorandum, forfamily pension. In the light of said judgment, the Court later on has also decided Laxmi Bai''s case, referred in the order under appeal.

It has been brought to our notice that the decision of the Court in Pensioners Samaj''s case (supra) has been reversed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in a Judgment on Civil Appeal filed by State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, The Supreme Court disposed off the appeal before it without finally deciding the contention raised therein, while setting aside the impugned order in the appeal on the basis of proposal placed by the Government. Their Lordships of the Apex Court decided the appeal in the following terms:

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the State Government has agreed to grant exgratia payment @ Rs. 150/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.89 to the alive widows of the Jodhpur CPF Retirees which CPF Retirees did not opt for pension scheme as and when chances were given to them to switch over to the scheme and died after availing CPF benefits. Learned Counsel for the respondents agrees for this proposal.

In the result, we while setting aside the impugned order, direct the State Government to pay the admitted exgratia payment @ Rs. 150/-per month w.e.f. 1.11.1989 in addition to the admissible allowance.

In view of aforesaid, this cannot now be disputed that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of option for securing family pension under the rules in terms of Laxmi Bai''s case relied on by learned Single Judge. The question that arises is whether the petitioner-appellant is entitled to ex-gratia payment as per above directions, being an alive widow of Jodhpur C.P.F. holder, To that extent, the order of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

Learned Additional Advocate General contends that according to the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled to even the benefit of grant of ex-gratia payment at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month, as per the directions of Hon''ble Supreme Court, aforesaid, because, according to him, the directions refer only to widows of C.P.F. Retirees and does not refer to widows of C.P.F. holders, who died while in service.

We do not find any force in hereinabove stated argument. The widows of the Government servant, who died while in service, are entitled to retiral benefits; may be that the quantum is variable depending on whether the person retires after completion of qualifying service or died while in service. The ex-gratia payment which has been allowed to alive widows of erstwhile- Jodhpur C.P.F. holders on the compensonate ground, the compesion does not differ in case of person who retires from service or, whose husband dies while in service. The term "widows of Jodhpur C.P.F. Retireees" in the context, denotes to the class of widows whose husband were members of Jodhpur C.P.F. and, no distinction can be made between them on the ground of the fact whether they had retired after completing full term of employment or, died while in service.

We, therefore, allow the appeal in part, set aside the order of learned Single Judge and direct the respondents to grant ex-gratia payment to the petitioner, as is being paid to other alive widows of C.P.F. holders of erstwhile Jodhpur C.P.F.

There will be no order as to costs.