- (1.) Smt. Nirmala Devi widow of late Shri Karam Singh 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 ex-gratia 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.) Karam Singh, husband of the petitioner was appointed as a work charge T-Mate on 17.10.1979. His services were regularised on 10.3.1995 as regular work Mate subject to certain terms and conditions. He was asked to report on duty after getting himself examined by the Chief Medical Officer/ Civil Surgeon, Sonepat. He was examined and report which as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent in the Court is available on record. He joined his duty as regular work Mate on 10.3.1995 after his medical examination. However, unfortunately he died on 26.11.1995. The petitioner submitted a representation alongwith a copy of the judgement in the case of Krishna Devi v. U.H.V.N. and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 11285 of 2004) and requested the respondent for release of all the benefits. On 10.6.2005 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 respondents 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 for a short period from 10.3.1995 to 26.11.1995 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 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 showing that he has undergone medical fitness test before the Civil Surgeon, Sonepat is on the record.;