- (1.) Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in view of the provisions of Clause 3(ka) of the Government Order dated 31.3.1982, appellant's husband who was appointed in 1973 died six years after completion of service in 1979, was entitled to the benefit of family pension in terms of the Government Order dated 31.3.1982 read with the Government Order dated 16.6.1984. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the effect that the appellant had taken a clear plea about the availability of the said family pension scheme on the ground, that according to said clause, one year of service was available for the purpose of qualifying service for family pension, and that period shall be excluded relating to leave without emoluments and the period of suspension or any such period prior to completion of 20 years of age. He has further submitted that the appellant was fully eligible for family pension keeping in view of the aforesaid facts as the appellant's husband had completed six years of service. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was answered by the learned Single Judge by relying upon the provisions of the triple benefit scheme wherein the qualifying period of service for pension is mentioned as 20 years. Learned Single Judge has also rejected the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the case of Musammat Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education & others,2002 1 ESC 370.
(3.) Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that while replying to paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the State had given an explanation in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.;