VYAS, J. - (1.) THE present petitioner is widow of late Shri Narain Ram, who was work charged employee of Forest Department. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Kanu Devi for claiming family pension from the date of death of her husband with interest @ 15% p. a. so also for compassionate appointment.
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts narrated in the writ petition, the husband of petitioner late Shri Narain Ram was appointed as Beldar/ Cooli w. e. f. 16. 3. 1981. He was allowed to work for about ten years and thereafter seniority list was published, which is placed on record as Annex. 2, whereby objections were invited for assigning proper seniority for balder. In the said list name of late Narain Ram was appearing at serial no. 16. Therefore, according to the Work Charged Rules, 1964, he was entitled to be given permanent status and his services were required to be regularised but unfortunately the services of Late Shri Narain Ram were not regularised and ultimately he died while in service on 28. 12. 1991. Thereafter, petitioner being widow of Late Narain Ram repeatedly filed representation one after another and some representations were also filed through Union for pensionary benefits and providing appointment on compassionate ground. When nothing turned out positive then petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2003 for the aforesaid reliefs. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Rajasthan Work Charged Rules, 1964 the husband of petitioner was very much entitled for grant of permanent status after completion of ten years of service, so also he was declared semi permanent in accordance with Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1964 but due to inaction on the part of respondents petitioner's husband was not regularised though seniority was assigned by the respondents in the cadre of casual labour. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that prior to 18. 1. 1989 Work Charged Rules were not applicable upon the employees of Forest Department but by notification dated 18. 1. 1989 Rules of 1964 were made applicable upon the employees of Forest Department also. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to issuance of notification dated 18. 1. 1989 in case of Bhartiya Van Vibhag Karamchari Sangh vs. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1873/86) and other connected matters, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22. 8. 1988 directed that the respondent Forest Department shall examine the cases of large number of employees working in the Forest Department and regularise their services. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of the Court towards the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in case of Norti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 1992 (1) W. L. C. (Raj.) page 89, wherein, family pension was granted to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's husband had completed ten years of service in 1973 in work charged establishment and arrears were ordered to be paid within two months. Similarly, in case of Gulab Bai vs. The Secretary, Govt. of Raj. Department of Irrigation reported in 2004 (3) CDR 2367 (Raj.), learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the work charge employee who had completed ten years of service is entitled for permanent status so also the wife of deceased employee of work charge establishment entitled for family pension. Another judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is Smt. Kiran Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2004 (3) CDR 2503 (Raj.) = (RLW 2004 (3) Raj. 2038) in which learned Single Judge of this Court held the petitioner entitled for family pension as petitioner's husband had put in more than 13 years of service.
(3.) WHILE citing these cases, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case also the petitioner's husband worked on the post of Beldar/cooli which is evident from final seniority list and completed more than ten years of service till he died on 28. 12. 1991, meaning thereby, after the death of petitioner's husband Narain Ram, petitioner is entitled for family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in case of Sujan Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Reported in WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 340, this Court adjudicated the controversy whether after declaring any work charge employee as permanent he is entitled for benefits under the Rajasthan Service Rules or not. Learned Single Judge after considering Work Charge Rules and provisions of RSR, 1951 came to the conclusion that after completion of ten years of service by any work charge employee irrespective of the fact that he has been regularised or declared permanent, he is entitled for benefits under the RSR. Therefore, as per counsel for the petitioner denial of family pension to the petitioner is totally illegal & arbitrary action of the respondents. Per contra, Learned Government Counsel vehemently argued that petitioner is not entitled for family pension and for appointment on compassionate ground because husband of petitioner Late Narain Ram was working as daily rated employee @ Rs. 22/- and though he had completed ten years of service but he was not declared permanent by the Department, therefore, widow of Late Narain Ram is not entitled to get family pension because late Narain Ram was not permanent employee of the Forest Department. ;