- (1.) Zile Singh was appointed as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher in V.S. High School, Rajlugarhi, District Rohtak on August 10, 1959. On November 16, 1961, this school was taken over by the Government. Zile Singh was absorbed in Government service w.e.f. November 16, 1961. It is averred that in May 1970, he proceeded on leave. While he was on leave, "he developed some serious mental trouble and could not join duty again and ultimately died on 6.9.1989." After his death, petitioner No. 1, the widow of Zile Singh submitted a representation for the grant of retiral benefits. While her representation was not being decided, she filed Civil Writ Petition No 7178 of 1990 which was disposed of by the Motion Bench on May 17, 1990. The authorities were directed to decide the representation. Vide order dated May 31,1991, the claim made by the petitioner has been rejected. Consequently, she alongwith her two minor children has filed the present petition. She prays that an 'appropriate writ, order or direction be issued quashing order dated May 31, 1991 anti that she may be granted family pension on the hypothesis that Zile Singh had served from August 10, 1959.
(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that Zile Singh has joined service on August 10, 1959 in a private school. On account of the long lapse of time, Service Book of the petitioner was lost. However, on reconstruction of the Service Book, the Department has found that Zile Singh had continued in service upto July 14, 1970. After that "his whereabouts were not known to the Department except that his death certificate was produced and the Deptt. came to know that he died on 6.9.89." It has been further averted that "after 14.7.70, the husband of the petitioner neither applied for leave nor he performed any Govt. duty. Rather, in fact, Zile Singh remained absent from duty from 14.7.70 to l5.9.89". It has also been stated that he had served the Government only for a period of 8 years and 8 months, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to her pension and other service benefits. The respondents also aver that the action of the respondents is not arbitrary and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(3.) Having perused the pleadings of the parties, it appears difficult to believe that Zile Singh could have subsisted or maintained his family without any income from July 14, 1970 till his death in September 1989. There is also no explanation in the writ petition as to how the petitioners made both ends meet during this period. Even an explanation for such a long silence has not been furnished. Further, no prima facie proof regarding the illness of Zile Singh has been produced. In such a situation, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution. This is all the more so as no specific provision which entitles the petitioner to any relief has been either pointed out in the petition or adverted to at the hearing. The only provisions referred to in the petition are clauses 8 and 9 of Rule 6.17. Per se these provisions do not confer any right on the petitioner till the provisions of the Scheme for family pension are also disclosed. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has not adverted to any provision of the said Scheme.;