Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition petitioner being widow of late Shri Tulsi Ram has prayed for quashing letter dt. 18.02.2005 (Annex.7) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby, she was held informed that she is not eligible for pension benefits and further prayed that respondents may be directed to grant pensionary benefits and also pay arrears from the date of eligibility with interest @ 12% p.a.
(2.) AS per facts of the case, petitioner's husband late Shri Tulsi Ram was working as Class IV employee in the PWD Department since 30.07.1971 and on the date of death i.e. 07.07.1984 he was working as Carpenter Gr.I under the control of Assistant Engineer Sub Division Ist, PWD, Jodhpur. The husband of petitioner was appointed on 30.07.1971 and died while in service, as such he had completed 13 years of service, therefore, petitioner is entitled for family benefits and other pensionary benefits being wife of late Tulsi Ram. Petitioner filed an application for grant of family pension. The case of the family pension of petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide Annex.P/7 dt. 18.02.2005 while observing that late Shri Tulsi Ram has not opted for pension benefits and the amount of CPF has been paid long back, therefore, there is no question of granting family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed that in accordance withR.22 -A it was the duty of respondents to get option from the work charged employee for getting pension benefits, but petitioner's husband was not provided said opportunity althoughR.22 -A was inserted on 17.09.1980. Likewise, while inviting attention towards Annex.9 dt. 15.07.1994 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, it is submitted that the State Government took decision for granting opportunity to opt for pension but said opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner being a widow of deceased employee, therefore, denial of family pension and other pensionary benefits is totally illegal and communication dt. 18.02.2005 deserves to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner's husband was initially appointed in 1971 and he was declared regular vide order dt. 18.06.1982 after completion of ten years of service w.e.f. 31.07.1981, therefore, petitioner's husband was a regular employee of the respondent department and as per judgment of this Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in, 1991 (WLR) 340 in which this Court has held that after declaration of an employee as regular or permanent, he becomes entitled to get all benefits which are available under RSR, therefore, denial of pensionary benefits to petitioner is contrary to law. It is further argued that according toR.22 -A of the Rules of 1964, which was inserted for granting option for pensionary benefits vide notification dt. 17.09.1980, the husband of petitioner Late Shri Tulsi Ram became entitled to opt for pensionary benefits but said opportunity was not granted to him and unfortunately he died in 1984.;