Prakash Tatia , J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner's husband was appointed as a driver in the Public Works Department (B&R), Bikaner w.e.f. 20.6.48. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's husband was substantively appointed. In the year 1964, Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Rules were framed, which are referred as Rules of 1954. According to these rules, a employee who works for two or more than two years can be granted status of semi-permanent employee and after completion of 10 years he may be granted status of permanent employee. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the deceased was since beginning claiming that he was a substantively appointed which is clear from the Annexure-1. In the Annex. dated 28th March, 1974 it is mentioned that "on examination of the case it is observed that the incumbent was initially appointed in service w.e f 20 6 48 as per entry recorded in his service book the appointment was also substantive even then petitioner was not treated as substantive appointee on the plea that some of the documents are not available on record.
(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners husband was wrongly treated as work charged employee and petitioners than husband was denied benefit of both namely, if he was work charge employee then benefit under the work Charge Rules, 1964 and if he was substantively appointed then benefit under the Service Rules which were applicable to the petitioner s husband. Neither the petitioner was paid amount of CPF nor pensionary benefits Even the husband of the petitioner was entitled for the gratuity benefits but was not paid for which petitioners husband initiated proceeding under the provisions of Gratuity Act before the competent authority in the life time of petitioners husband. This claim of gratuity was allowed by the competent authority in the year 1990, upon which payment of gratuity amount was given. It is also submitted that petitioners husband, in his life time, submitted option form for opting the pensionary benefits. Not only this but petitioners husband was retired at the age of 55 years only, which is the age of superannuation for the substantive appointed employee and not for the work charged employee, as work charged employee are superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years In the order of superannuation dated 22nd July, 1981 (Annex.6) even the respondents themselves said that in case the petitioners husband is a employee' of regular cadre and if he is willing to have pensionary benefits then for preparation of the pension papers he may approach the office so that pension case can be prepared of the petitioner's husband.;