- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER is widow of Late Ramchandra who was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Public Works Department, Jodhpur. The petitioner being wife of Late Ramchandra claiming retiral benefits and family pension. As per facts of the case, the husband of petitioner Late Shri Ramchandra was appointed as Class IV employee (Chowkidar) and later on promoted to the post of L.D.C vide order dated 12.10.57 and to the post of U.D.C vide order dated 22.10.70. The husband of petitioner Late Ramchandra was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.12.79 due to contemplation of departmental inquiry against him for misconduct of embezzlement of Government money. But later on he was reinstated vide order dated 23.06.84 and joined his duties on 04.07.84. After reinstatement, the husband of petitioner was transferred from P.W.D. West Division, Osian vide order dated 30.09.84 to Sojat City on the vacant post of Junior Accountant but did not join the duties and applied for leave due to heart disease of his wife. Number of applications were filed for extension of leave from time to time till attaining the age of superannuation by Late Ramchandra but no order was passed by the department till attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f 31.07.93. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules. was issued against the petitioner's husband on 17.12.84 after reinstatement in which an allegation was levelled that you are involved in a case of embezzlement of Rs.34,119.66 made by one Narpat Karan Rathore, the then Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur. The departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner's husband was finally dropped vide order dated 04.04.08 after his death. The criminal case registered against the petitioner also came to an end because during pendency of the criminal case he died on 05.12.05. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards order dated 04.04.08 (Annex.7) submits that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner vide chargesheet dated 17.12.84 was finally closed and suspension period commencing from 06.12.79 to 22.06.84 was regularised vide order dated 04.04.08. The petitioner being wife of Late Ramchandra repeatedly filed applications for granting family pension and other benefits. In pursuance of those applications, the case of petitioner's husband for granting extra ordinary leave for 3224 days was referred by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Jodhpur vide communication dated 01.03.07 to the Secreatry, Public Works Department. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent on 24.04.07 vide Annex.12 and communication dated 16.05.07 (Annex.13).
(3.) THE Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Department, Jaipur sent a communicated on 24.07.08 and informed the petitioner that due to refusal of granting consent by the Finance department, the past services rendered by the employee has been forfeited, therefore, no pensionary benefit can be granted to her. Further it is observed that if any family pension is sanctioned, the said family pension may be stopped immediately. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for willful absence from duty, the State Government can take action either under Rule 23 or under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules but admittedly, no action was taken against Late Ramchandra for willful absence from duty for the period w.e.f 30.09.84 till the date of superannuation dated 31.07.93 and abruptly after his death, the communication dated 24.07.07 (Annex.15) was communicated by Chief Engineer to Executive Engineer, P.W.D Division I, Jodhpur whereby the services of Late Ramchandra have been forfeited in view of Rule 86 of RSR, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents for not granting extra-ordinary leave for the aforesaid period. Further admittedly, the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner's husband was closed while regularising the service period of petitioner's husband in which he remained under suspension from 06.12.79 to 22.06.84, then, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Government for forfeiting the services of petitioner's husband is in accordance with provisions of R.S.R because no action for willful absence from duty was undertaken against Late Ramchandra, husband of petitioner and only on the basis of unreasonable order of the Goernment, respondents denied family pension to the petitioner which is not permissible in law. Therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition may be allowed and respondents may be directed to grant family pension and other benefits of Late Ramchandra, husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently argued that before death in the year 1979 Late Ramchandra was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A Rules against him and remained under suspension for nearabout five years and later on reinstated in service on 17.12.1984 and after joining when posting was given to him he did not join the duties and remained absent from duty till attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1993. The matter with regard to granting extraordinary leave for the period during which Late Ramchandra remaining absent, a decision was taken by the Government not to grant any leave and regularise the absence of Late Ramchandra, therefore, obviously, for the period of absence from duty, as per Rule 86(1) of RSR, the Chief Engineer felt necessary to pass an order dated 24.07.08 to forfeit past services of Late Ramchandra. The order impugned in this writ petition dated 24.07.08 does not suffer from any illegality because there is power left with the competent authority to take decision in accordance with Rule 86(1) of RSR, 1951 in case any employee remains willfully absent from duty for unlimited period. In the facts narrated above, the respondent took decision to forfeit entire services of Late Ramchandra who remained absent from duty w.e.f 30.09.84 to the date of his superannuation. Therefore, no relief claimed by the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition. ;