S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THE husband of the petitioner - Mam Chand Sharma, was employed as Patwari in the office of respondent No. 4 prior to 1.8.1937. He retired from the post in August, 1967. The case of the petitioner is that Mam Chand (deceased) completed 42 years of service and worked in the office of respondent No. 4 upto the age of 62 years. The age of superannuation was 58 years. After retirement, Mam Chand represented for pensionary benefits as provided under the Pup -jab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana. However, the same were denied.
(2.) THE respondents case is that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits (family pension). The reason is that Mam Chand served upto the age of 62 years instead of 58 years and had also received a reward of Rs. 150/ - from the department. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for direction for quashing the Annexures P/2, P/4, P/8 and P/9 and for the release of family pension to the petitioner. Annexure P/2 is a letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar to Mam Chand Sharma, husband of the petitioner, in which it has been stated that he has served upto 62 years of age and had received award/honorarium of Rs. 150/ - after retirement and his service period is 42 years. Hence, Mam Chand was not entitled to pension. Annexure P/4 is a letter again written by the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar to Mam Chand, again reiterating that he is not entitled to pension and gratuity. Annexure P/8 is again reiteration of the same in letter written by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner. Annexure P/9 is a letter regarding liberalisation of pensionary benefits on the recommendation of Pay Commission. This letter is challenged for the reason that reference of annexure P/9 was given in annexure P/8. The questions, therefore, arise are whether the petitioner's husband was not entitled to pension because he served after the period of superannuation and received some reward of Rs. 150/ -? and whether the post on which the Mam Chand worked, was pensionable post or not?
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.;