- (1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to release family pension in his favour from the date of death of her husband, i.e., October 23, 1983. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner, before death, had rendered only 11 months of service. Counsel for the petitioner by taking us through appointment letter Annexure P-2 has made an attempt to show that service of the petitioner's husband was regular in nature.
(2.) In reply, it has been stated that husband of the petitioner was taken in service on work charge basis as a Driver, by inviting applications through employment exchange. It is further stated that as he was working on a work charge basis, as per provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of family pension.
(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is apparent from the records and not disputed before us that husband of the petitioner entered in service of the respondents vide order Annexure R-2 dated February 14, 1983. He died on October 23, 1983. In this manner, he has rendered service for about 8-1/2 months only. In appointment letter Annexure R-2, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner's husband had been selected as a Driver on work charge basis. Merely because he was asked to get himself medically examined, it cannot be said that he was taken in service on regular basis. It is apparent from document Annexure R-3 that his presence was marked in a register, which was maintained to mark attendance of work charge employees. Since husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Driver, we think that to judge his capability to drive, he might have been asked to undergo medical examination. Controversy as to whether family/ dependents of the work charge employee are entitled to get benefit of family pension. as per the pension scheme, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others v. Surji Devi, Appeal (Civil) 576 of 2008, wherein after taking note of relevant provisions of the Scheme, especially para 11, vide which payment of family pension to the dependents of employee, who was working on work charge basis, was specifically excluded, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus : "The scheme relating to grant of Family Pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2 'vis-vis' the Family Pension Scheme, it would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any family pension. Husband of the respondent was a work-charge employee. His services had never been regularized. It may be unfortunate that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit of the regularization scheme but sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and others, 2005 2 SCC 638,; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, 2006 9 Scale 549; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, 2006 11 Scale 258; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors., 2006 13 Scale 319 and State of M.P. And Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors., 2007 12 Scale 72). The statutory provisions, as noticed hereinbefore, debar grant of family pension in favour of the family members as the deceased employee if was a work-charge employee and not a permanent employee or temporary employee. The period during which an employee worked as a work-charge employee could be taken into consideration only when his services are regularized and he becomes permanent and not otherwise".;