- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2006 passed in CWP No.3226/2004 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected the claim for pensionary benefits, as made by the petitioner in relation to the services rendered by her late husband Girdhari Singh, who served as Security Guard/Peon with the respondents and retired on 31.01.1995.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner-appellant in the writ petition had been that her husband, after having retired from the services of the Army, was appointed on the work of Security Guard as daily rated employee w.e.f. 23.06.1984; and that after completion of 2 years of service, he was granted semi permanent status on 01.08.1996 and then, he was retired on 31.01.1995 at the age of 58 years, though the age of retirement was 60 years. It was submitted that as per the Government order dated 21.03.1994, the persons who had completed 10 years of service including the period on muster rolls were to be made permanent but the petitioner's husband was given the retirement and then, he died on 30.08.1999 without getting the pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge referred to the Government order dated 21.03.1994 whereby it was provided that all the work charged employees who had rendered 10 years' continuous and satisfactory service as on 31.12.1993 were to be converted into regular employees w.e.f. 01.04.1994; and, with reference to the submissions made in the reply that the petitioner's husband had not completed 10 years of service as on the cutoff date, i.e., 31.12.1993, concluded that he had rightly been denied pension.
(3.) QUESTIONING the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant strenuously contended that the conclusion as reached by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner's husband did not complete 10 years of service as on the cut off date is erroneous for the relevant factual and legal aspects of the matter having not been considered. According to the learned counsel, for the purpose of counting the length of service, the date of entry of the employee in service on muster rolls basis, i.e., 23.06.1984 ought to have been taken into consideration and he had indeed completed 10 years of service before the date of retirement, i.e., 31.01.1995. It is also submitted that the question of age of retirement has not been examined by the learned Single Judge.;