H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) BY these three writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents for granting the pension and other pensionary benefits. Since all the writ petitions involve identical questions of facts and law, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are being heard and decided by the common order taking the facts of SBCWP No. 1325/2006 as the leading case.
(2.) THE husband of the petitioner was a work -charge Mistry and he was declared semi -permanent on the post. He voluntarily retired from service after completion of about 24 years' service. Petitioner's husband submitted an application for grant of family pension on 24.04.1997 and he expired on 12.02.1999. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of pension and family pension, which has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order Annx.12 dt. 18.08.2005. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE controversy involved in these writ petitions stands concluded by a decision of Jaipur Bench of this Court in Purab Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SBCWP No. 4665/2005 decided on 02.09.2005, wherein considering the reply filed by the respondents therein, it was held that since the petitioner has been paid all the benefits and no option for pension has been given during the aforesaid period, therefore, no relief can be granted.;