M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.11.2004 ( Annexure P.9) rejecting the claim of the petitioner to release family pension to her by considering that her husband was working as Sewer Helper on regular basis. The husband of the petitioner has been working as daily wager since September, 1992 as a Sewer Helper and he died on 24.7.2003. It is claimed that he was entitled to be regularised in service in pursuance to the policy letter dated 7.3.1996. He represented on 4.6.1997. After his death, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 25.11.2003. The writ petition filed by the petitioner namely CWP No.5997 of 2004 for the grant of family pension and regularisation of the services of the husband of the petitioner was disposed of on 8.4.2004 by issuing direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. On 11.11.2004, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected (Annexure P.9). It has been found that from 1993 to 1996 the husband of the petitioner had worked for a very little period and the detail is as under: "Year No. of days he No. of days of break with detail attended the work of months of absences. 1993 182 days 130 days (continuous break 4/93, 6/93, 10/93 to 12/93) 1994 260 days 52 days ( do 1/94 to 3/94) 1995 260 days 52 days (do 1/94 to 4/95) 1996 26 days "
(2.) Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the services of her husband as well as for grant of family pension was rejected. We have heard the learned counsel and are of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The matter is not res-integra. According to paragraph 3 of the Family Pension Scheme 1964 the benefit could be extended only to regular employees of pensionable establishment temporary or permanent. The afore-mentioned provision reads as under: " 11. This Scheme will not be applicable to :- (a) persons who retired before the Ist July, 1964 but may be re-employed on that date or thereafter; (b) Persons paid from contingencies; Work charged staff; (d)Casual labour; (e) Contract officers; and (f)Persons who were in service in the composite State of Punjab prior to Ist November,1966 and came over to Haryana State on or after Ist November, 1996 or those who have been recruited by the Haryana Government on or after Ist November,1966, without a minimum service of five years in the Haryana State." A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana and others ( CWP No.1851 of 2006) decided on 7.2.2006 interpreted the aforementioned provision by observing as under: "A perusal of paragraph 3 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 reveals that the Scheme" is applicable to all regular employees on pensionable establishment." It is, therefore, apparent that before a dependent of a deceased government employee claims family pension, one of the essential prerequisites is that the deceased government employee was a "regular employee on pensionable establishment". It is not a matter of dispute that the deceased husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee with the respondents at any stage whatsoever. We are, therefore, of the view that the Family Pension Scheme, 1963, is clearly inapplicable to the petitioner. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner did not take into consideration paragraph 3 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, and as such cannot be considered to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(3.) The observations of the Division Bench are fully applicable to the case in hand as the petitioner's husband in the present case also worked as a work-charged. The judgement of the other Division Bench in Usha Rani v. State of Haryana 2004(4) RSJ 546 has no application to the facts of the present case.Infact para 11 (c) of the 1964 Scheme expressly provides that it would not be applicable to work charged staff. In vie of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;