Tripta Jaitley vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioners have claimed family pension. Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley, husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioner No. 2 joined as Lab Assistant on work-charged basis on 30.04.1977. He died on 09.09.1982. On 09.11.1983 instructions were issued to regularize the services of those persons who had put in four years of work-charge service as on 31.12.1981. The benefit of these instructions has however denied to the petitioners because, as mentioned above their predecessor-in-interest, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jaitley had died on 09.09.1982.

In the written statement, the only ground taken for denying the family pension to the petitioners is that Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley did not have 10 years service to his credit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the requirement of 10 years service is for regular pension and family pension has to be granted under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 under which there is no such stipulation. As per him, once Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley was entitled for regularization w.e.f. 31.12.1981 the fact that he died on 09.09.1982 could not takeaway this vested right and he would have had to notionally regularized and once that was done his legal representatives would be entitled for family pension. As per Rule 6.17(ii) of the said scheme only one year service is required for entitlement to family pension which the petitioners fulfil. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Chameli v. The State of Haryana and others, reported as 1999(2) RSJ 688, wherein it was held as follows:-

A careful reading of the averments made in the petition shows that Shri Mange Ram was eligible to be regularized in service as per the above extracted instructions. The respondents have not contested his eligibility to be regularized in service on the ground that he did not complete 4 years work-charge service as on 31.12.1981 or on the ground that his antecedents were found to be wanting in any manner but on the ground that due to his demise on 18.7.1983, Shri Mange Ram could not be subjected to medical examination as envisaged by the instructions dated 26.10.1983. In our opinion, this cannot be considered to be a rational justification for denying the benefit of regularization of service to late Shri Mange Ram because it has not been proved that as on 31.12.1981, he suffered from any disability.

In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to take the following steps:

(i) The services of Shri Mange Ram should be regularized in accordance with the instructions issued by the Engineer-in-Chief vide memo dated 26.10.1983. This shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of handing over of an attested copy of this order to the learned Deputy Advocate General by the Bench Secretary.

(ii) Within next 2 months, the respondents shall determine the amount of gratuity, ex-gratia and family pension payable to the petitioner.

(iii) The amount due to the petitioner shall be paid to her within next 4 weeks.

(iv) In case there is a lapse in the payment of amount of a family pension, gratuity, ex-gratia etc., then the petitioner shall get interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Learned Assistant Advocate General has not been able to distinguish this judgment.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners be granted family pension with effect from the date of death of Shri Ramesh Kumar Jaitley. Let the family pension be fixed and the arrears be granted to the petitioners within a period of three months, failing which they would be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of demise till the date of payment. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.