- (1.) Smt. Santosh Devi widow of late Shri Krishan Lal has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming the benefit of family pension from the date of death of her husband and release of exgratia grant, gratuity and leave encashment. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction for payment of arrears of family pension, ex gratia grant, gratuity and leave encashment with 18 percent interest.
(2.) Krishan Lal, husband of the petitioner was appointed as a work charge T. Mate on 19.2.1977. He was promoted as work charge Asstt. Lineman on 5.8.1983. He was again promoted to the post of Workcharge Lineman on 1.6.1984. His services were regularised on 31.10.1991 as regular Asstt. Lineman subject to certain terms and conditions. He was asked to report for duty after getting himself examined from the Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon, Karnal. He joined the duty as regular Asst. Lineman on 31.10.1991 after his medical examination by the Civil Surgeon, Karnal. However, unfortunately he died on 2.1.1992. The petitioner submitted a representation alongwith a copy of the judgement in the case of Sharmila Devi v. UHBVN Ltd.,2002 4 SCT 178(Civil Writ Petition No. 6837 of 2001) and requested for release of all the benefits. On 10.2.2005 she served advance notice through her counsel and requested the respondents for the release of her pensionary benefits. Despite her personal visits to the office of the irespondents the claim made by the petitioner was not accepted and it was disclosed to her orally that her claim was not to be accepted because her husband had served the department as a regular employee from 31.10.1991 to 2.1.1992 which is less than one year after regularisation of his services.
(3.) The claim of the petitioner has been opposed by placing reliance on Clause 4 of the Family Pension Scheme 1964 and it was pointed out that the rule required minimum period of one year of continuous service without break which the husband of the petitioner did not fulfill. It was also submitted at one stage that husband of the petitioner did not undergo medical check up and therefore the petitioner cannot claim family pension and other benefits. On 8.9.2006, we had adjourned the proceedings in order to enable the counsel for the respondent to produce the record substantiating the plea of lack of medical examination. He has stated before us that medical certificate is not on record which show that he has undergone medical fitness test before the Civil Surgeon, Sonepat.;