VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner being widow of late Rekha Ram, employee of the respondent Department, who died while in service on 2. 6. 1984 has preferred this writ petition for directions to the respondents to grant family pension in accordance with law. Further, it is prayed that entire arrear of the pension along with 18% interest may be granted to the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner late Rekha Ram entered into the service in the erstwhile Rajasthan Nahar Pariyojna on 20. 12. 1968 on the post of Beldar and he was posted under the respondent Assistant Engineer in the Rajasthan Nahar Pariyojana at Rawatsar. The husband of the petitioner late Rekha Ram was granted semi permanent status in accordance with Rule 3 (3) of the Work- charged Rules, 1964 w. e. f. 20. 12. 1970 and his pay was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 240-290 w. e. f. 1. 9. 1976 and further his pay was fixed to Rs. 415.00 per month in the revised pay scale Rules 1983 w. e. f. 20. 1. 1982. The petitioner's husband died while in service on 2. 6. 1984 and till his death although the petitioner's husband was entitled to be declared permanent after completion of ten years of service in accordance with the Rules of 1964 but due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner's husband was not granted permanent status, so also, regular status as provided under the Rules of 1964. After death of late Rekha Ram instead of granting pensionary benefits to the petitioner, she was paid Rs. 4109.00 as amount of gratuity and Rs. 7906. 75 as amount of C. P. F. and this order was made for payment on 4. 6. 1985. In this case, the petitioner has made a prayer that she is illiterate lady and according to the rules, the husband of the petitioner late Rekha Ram rendered more than 15 years of service with the respondent department and as per Rules of 1964, he was required to be declared permanent after completion of ten years of service, so also as per rules, the petitioner was to be allowed family pension because for work-charged employees pension was made applicable but due to inaction on the part of the respondents no family pension was allowed to the petitioner after death of her husband, who was employee and was working with the respondent Department for a period of 15 years.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964, which was added for granting option for pensionary benefits vide notification dated 17. 9. 1980 in which as per the counsel for the petitioner it was the duty of the respondents to provide option to the work charged employees for grant of pensionary benefits but it was not granted to late Shri Rekha Ram though he was working in the respondent Department under the work charged cadre. Learned counsel for the petitioner as invited my attention towards certain judgment of this Court, which are as follows : 1. 2004 (3) CDR 2503 = (RLW 2004 (3) Raj. 2038) (Kiran Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2. 2004 (3) CDR 2367 (Gaulabi Bai Vs. Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Department of Irrigation & Ors.) 3. 1992 (1) WLC 89 (Naurti Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) 4. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1814/1998 decided on 25. 10. 2007 (Sugan Kanwar Vs. State of Raj.) 5. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1484/2006 decided on 8. 3. 2007 (Mahendra Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) 6. 1991 WLR 340 (Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) While citing the above judgments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to inaction of the respondents, the husband of the petitioner late Rekha Ram was not given permanent status and after completion of ten years though he has completed 15 years of service and was semi permanent in the year 1970. Further, it is submitted that option was to be given to the petitioner's husband in accordance with Rule 22-A but unfortunately no option was given to late Rekha Ram and after his death the petitioner has been denied pensionary benefits, which is totally inaction on the part of the respondents. ;