NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is widow of one Shri Chhotu Ram; through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of orders copies Annexures P-1, P-6 and P-8 (Dated 23.3.1988, 26.8.1988 and 6.9.1988) passed by the respondents declining the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- under the Haryana State Employees Group Insurance Scheme Rules, 1975 , family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity along with interest till the date of payment.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Mortar Mate no 16.12.1972 on work charge basis by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D. (B&R), Charkhi Dadri, respondent No. 3, that after having put in more than 8 years of service, the services of the husband of the petitioner on the post of Mortar Mate were regularised by the Superintending Engineer (B&R), Bhiwani Circle, Bhiwani, respondent No. 2 vide his office order dated 19.12.1980 with effect from 3.7.1980. The husband of the petitioner while working as Mortar Mate died on 15.11.1980 in a road accident. After the death of her husband the petitioner requested respondent No. 3 to prepare pension papers so as to enable her to get retiral benefits. To her great dismay, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 23.3.1988 that since the petitioner's husband had put in less than one year of regular service, therefore, she was not entitled to any family pension. The petitioner was also informed vide letter of respondent No. 3 dated 26.8.1988 that she was not entitled to the amount of Rs. 5000/- under the Group Insurance Scheme as the service of her husband was regularised after his death. Consequently, the petitoiner approached this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have granted family pension to the petitioner under the provisions as contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules provided the deceased employee has put in more than one year of service. It was specifically urged that since the husband of the petitioner had put in more than 8 years of service and had died while working as Motor Mate, as such the action of the respondents denying family pension to her is unjust.