VYAS, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant family pension and other service benefits applicable to her including commutation, exgratia, gratuity, insurance, etc. , so also interest at the simple rate in delay in granting family pension. According to the facts of the case, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the Irrigation Department on 10. 11. 1968 and thereafter his services were regularized and he was given permanent status vide order dated 1. 6. 1982. The husband of the petitioner died while working under respondent No. 3 and his son was provided appointment on the post of Beldar on compassionate ground. The petitioner has filed representations for granting family pension and other benefits but family pension was not granted to her and ultimately, petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents, which is placed on record as Annexure-A/5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner's husband was regular employee of the State and he was given permanent status by the Irrigation Department, therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Sujan Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. , reported in WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 340, the petitioner is entitled for family pension. Further, the petitioner has invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Norti Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. , reported in 1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) 89, in case of Smt. Gulab Bai Vs. Secretary, Govt. of Raj. , Department of Irrigation, reported in 2004 (3) CDR 2367 (Raj.) and another judgment in case of Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. , reported in 2004 (3) CDR 2503 (Raj.) = (RLW 2004 (3) Raj. 2038) and prayed that for the service rendered by the petitioner's husband, she is very much entitled for family pension but it has not been granted to her by the respondents. For denial of pension on the ground of delay in claiming pension, the counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2000 (3) WLC 102 Therefore, the directions may be issued to the respondents for granting family pension and other benefits. Per contra in reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that for the first time, the petitioner made an option on 8. 6. 2005 for taking family pension instead of C. P. F. The matter of the petitioner is being processed and if she is found entitled as per law for grant of pension, it will be made available. The respondents also submitted that the petitioner has applied for family pension after 22 years of the death of her husband and it is clear from perusal of Annexure-R/1, which shows that the petitioner opted for pension in place of C. P. F. only on 8. 6. 2005 and now the matter is being processed as per law. While filing additional affidavit, it is submitted by the respondents that during course of arguments on 8. 12. 2005, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the entitlement of the petitioner with regard to the payment of family pension within a period of one month and in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Joint Director, Pensioners Welfare Department, Ajmer vide its letter dated 31. 12. 2005 proceeded to decide the case of the petitioner. The Pensioners Welfare Department, Ajmer found that the petitioner was not entitled to get family pension because the husband of the petitioner was work-charge employee in the year 1982 and there was no provision for grant of pension for work-charge employee and same was returned to the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Sub Division Mandal with the remarks that for grant of family pension a government sanction is required. Further it is submitted that on 9. 1. 2006, the matter was referred to the higher authority but case was returned from the Addl. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Zone Udaipur with the same remarks that the work-charge employees in the year of 1982 were not entitled to family pension. Thereafter, the respondents gone through the provisions of rule governing the field and as per Rule 22 (1) of the Rajasthan Work Charge Service Rules, 1964, it is revealed that the work charge employees were to be given option for family pension and the aforesaid Rule 22-A of the Work Charge Rules was brought into effect on 1. 9. 1982 whereas the husband of the petitioner who was working as Beldar on work charge basis died on 12. 2. 1982. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner died before the Rule 22 (A) of the Work Charge Rules were brought into effect. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get family pension.
(3.) WHILE narrating above grounds, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner's claim is totally unfounded. Therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioners. First of all, it is required to be observed that the respondents are flouting the directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions. More specifically, in the year 1991 in case of Sujan Singh Vs. State (supra), this Court held that after granting permanent status to the work charge employee, all the benefits available under the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules will be applicable. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment rendered in case of Sujan Singh (supra) reads as follows :      " (3) In the result, the writ petition is accepted, the petitioner shall be treated as a permanent status holder i. e. A regular employee and the word permanent and regular should be equated for all purpose and the petitioner shall be given all benefits of a regular employee from the date on which he has completed 10 years' service and he shall be entitled for all type of allowances inclusive of house rent allowance and all Rajasthan Service Rules and C. C. A. Rules will be applicable to the petitioner. " ;