KESHOTE, J. - (1.) BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for direction, directing the respondents to allow Family Pension Benefits to the petitioner from 1. 3. 1964 or from any other date which this Court thinks just and proper.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, late Shri Lal Chand Bohra, was a permanent Government servant as Patwari, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan. He had served for about 10 years. He died while in service before 1. 3. 1964. At that time, there was no provision to provide family pension to the dependents of deceased employee. However, the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were came to be amended and Rules 268-A and 268-B have been inserted in these Rules. By virtue of this amendment in the Rules of 1951, the family pension was given to the dependents of the employees/officers who retired or died on or after 1. 3. 1964. THE petitioner's husband was expired prior to 1. 3. 1964 and therefore, she could not get this benefits. THE representations were made for grant of the Family Pension Benefit to those who are dependents of the deceased employees who died before 1. 3. 1964 from different corners. Ultimately, the Government decided under its order No. F. 1 (50)FD (Gr. 2)/82 dated 18. 7. 1988 to extend the benefits of the Family Pension to the widows of the Government employees/officers who retired or died prior to 1. 3. 1964. A copy of this order is placed on record at Page No. 10. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This order was made effective w. e. f. 1. 4. 1988. After this decision taken by the Government, the petitioner was given the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme under the order dated 23. 6. 1992 w. e. f. 1. 11. 1989. THE petitioner in this petition claiming the Family Pension Benefits from 1. 3. 1964 and or from any other appropriate date fixes by this Court. The reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents and claim of the petitioner has been contested. It is alleged that the case of the petitioner is not covered even under the Government Order dated 18. 7. 1988. It is stated that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr. 2) Department order No. F. 1 (47)FD (Gr. 2)/88-II Jaipur, dated 2. 12. 1989, where under these benefits were made effective from 1. 11. 1989 and accordingly, the benefits were given to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the extension of Family Pension Benefits only to the dependents of the employees who retired or died on or after 1. 3. 1964 is wholly arbitrary and it is clearly a piece of a provision which makes a hostile discrimination. It is contended that this cut of date of retirement or death of the Government employees/officers for benefits of family pension creats artificially two classes of employee i. e. who died or retired on or before 1. 3. 1964 and on or after that date, though basically, it is one and the same class. It is being a matter of the Family Pension is a socio-economic provision. This cut of date fixed is arbitrary. Alternatively it is contended that the case of the petitioner falls under the Government order dated 18. 7. 1988 but the petitioner has been given benefits from 1. 11. 1989, though, it was made effective from 1. 4. 1988, which is wholly arbitrary. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner replying to the defence taken by the respondents in the reply to the petitioner, contended that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Government order dated 18. 7. 1988. The Government Order dated 1. 12. 1989 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the petitioner and the reply to the petition filed by the respondents.
(3.) THIS petition was presented by the petitioner in the Court on 2. 4. 1993. The Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were amended prior to 16. 6. 1988 and in case the petitioner was really aggrieved of the denial of the Family Pension to the dependents of the employees/officers who died or retired on or before 1. 3. 1964, she should have taken the action in time against the same, which has not been done. It also not the case of the petitioner that she has filed representation making her grievance against this alleged arbitrary action of the State, so she has never raised any such objections, prior to she has been given the pension by the respondents from 1. 11. 1989 vide order dated 23. 6. 1992. She appears to have been suddenly awakened and has chosen to file this petition. THIS claim made for extending the benefits of the Family Pension to the petitioner w. e. f. 1. 3. 1964, deserves no acceptance as it suffers from vices of delay and latches. The petitioner has not furnished any explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay. There is yet another reason for which this claim made by the petitioner for grant of Family pension to her from 1. 3. 1964 deserves no acceptance. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of Rules 268-A and 268-B of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951. Unless the validity of the Rules aforestated is questioned and this Court is declared the same to be ultra vires to the Constitution, this claim made by the petitioner is not tenable. The next question which falls for consideration of this Court is that under which orders of the Government i. e. 18. 7. 1988 or 2. 12. 1989, the case of the petitioner does fall. In the reply to the petition, the respondents given out that the petitioner's husband was not the employee of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner's husband has served the erstwhile Jaipur State. This factual averment made by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition have not been controverted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder in the case. The statement aforestated made by the respondents in their reply is correct if we go by the petitioner's own case. In Para-3 to the petition, the petitioner admitted that her husband has died on 5. 6. 1942 and on that date notice of this fact may be taken that there State of Jaipur was in existence. In the year 1942, the State of Rajasthan was not formed. From this undisputed fact, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner has died while serving the then erstwhile State of Jaipur and accordingly, he was not Government servant. ;