- (1.) Smt. Sarla Devi widow of late Shri Satbir Singh has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 21.11.2005 (P-3) passed by respondent No. 2 declining her claim for family pension. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to finalise the family pension case of the husband of the petitioner and to make payment of arrears from the date of his death along with 12% interest.
(2.) Satbir Singh, husband of the petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board as a Regular Work-Mate on 11.5.1993 after getting himself medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Sonepat. On 24.12.1993, while discharging his duty he met with an accident and was admitted in the hospital, where he unfortunately expired on 26.12.1993. In August 1994, the petitioner was appointed as Peon under the Ex-gratia Scheme. It has been claimed that the petitioner met time and again to the respondent authorities for grant of family pension on account of death of her husband but no positive response was given. Thereafter she made a representation for grant of family pension on 14.6.2005 (P-1) and also sent a legal notice on 22.8.2005 (P-2). It is appropriate to mention here that in the representation as well as legal notice the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent authorities a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Krishna Devi v. UHBVNL, (C.W.P. No. 11285 of 2004, decided on 31.1.2005). It has been asserted that the husband of the petitioner and husband of Smt. Krishna Devi joined service on the same day and in the same office. The husband of Smt. Krishna Devi, namely, Late Shri Satbir Singh expired prior to the husband of the present petitioner on 19.11.1993. The husband of the petitioner expired on 26.12.1993 and in this manner he has served the respondents for a longer period. This Court while allowing C.W.P. No. 11285 of 2004 filed by Smt. Krishna Devi, has granted the benefit of family pension in her favour (P-4). The respondents, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension vide order dated 21.11.2005 on the ground that as per the instructions family pension is admissible only to such deceased employees who have completed minimum one year qualifying service at the time of death and the service of Shri Satbir Singh (husband of the petitioner) was less than one year at the time of his death (P-3).
(3.) In the written statement the respondents have reiterated their stand that since the husband of the petitioner has not completed one year's qualifying service at the time of his death, therefore, the she is not entitled to the benefit of family pension. The claim of the petitioner has been opposed by placing reliance on Clause 4 of the Family Pension Scheme 1964, by pointing 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 has further been asserted by the respondents that the petitioner has approached the respondents in the year 2005 after a delay of about more than 11 years after the death of her husband for grant of family pension, therefore, she does not deserve the family pension.;