RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner husband Lt. Shri Gulab Singh was working as Beldar as a work charged employee since 23. 12. 78. While working on the post of Beldar the petitioner's husband died on 18. 5. 91. But the petitioner's husband during his life time was not regularised on the post of Beldar in view of the work charged employee service Rules 1964.
(2.) AS per the provisions of work charged employees service Rules 1964 there is requirement of submission of option for benefit of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not regularised on the post of Beldar, therefore, option was not asked for the benefit of pension. In view of this fact petitioner's husband was not able to submit his option for pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention towards provisions of sub Rule 6 of Rule 22 of Rajasthan Work charged Employees Service Rules and also referred a notification dated 11. 12. 89, which was later on added in the Rules. Per control learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner's husband failed to submit his option, therefore, after his death the GPF amounting Rs. 3536/- paid to the petitioner vide letter dated 25. 3. 2003. Respondents also raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy before the competent authority. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the relevant provisions, which are referred before me. it is not disputed that the petitioner was working on the post of Beldar and as per the provisions of Workcharged Employees Service Rules 1964 he was not given status of regular employee. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was ever given option for pension. On the contrary since the service of the petitioner was not regularised, the option was not offered to the petitioner and which in service he expired on 18. 5. 91. Thus petitioner's husband Late Shri Gulab Singh worked for 13 years between the period from 23. 12. 78 to 18. 5. 91 but was not declared permanent under the work charged rules. I also perused sub rule 6 of Rule 22 and the Notification dated 11. 12. 89 later on added. As per sub rule 6 of Rule 22 and the Notification in case any employee died while in service even they are not able to give the option, are also entitled for family pension.
(3.) IN view of the provisions referred before me, I fully convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and I deem it proper to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the provisions of sub rule 6 of Rule 22 and notification dated 11. 12. 89. After considering the case of the petitioner if the petitioner is found entitled for family pension, the same may be allowed to her. With these observations the writ petition stands allowed. .;