Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is wife of deceased employee Jagdish Singh Panwar who was in service of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services. The petitioner was retired on 30.09.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. He died on 19.04.2000. The deceased employee was getting regular pension under the provision of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules 1996, and after his death his family was getting the family pension for which PPO No. 550473965 was issued.
(2.) THE petitioner, wife of the deceased employee Jagdish Singh Panwar, received the copy of order dt. 25.04.2007 by which she has been conveyed that since deceased employee un -authorizedly occupied the Government Accommodation and, therefore, she is liable to pay Rs. 34,992/ - which is required to be deducted from the pensionery benefits granted to the deceased employee's wife petitioner. The copy of this order dt. 25.04.2007 as Annexure. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dt. 25.4.2007 as Annexure. 1, has preferred this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband had fallen sick in the year 1993 and, therefore, he could not join duty at the place of transfer in pursuance of order dt. 19.10.1993 at Jaipur and in pursuance of order dt. 15.04.1997 at Udaipur. The petitioner's husband, therefore, continued to occupy the accommodation at Jodhpur till he retired. The petitioner's husband's transfers which were made in the year 1993 and 1997 were cancelled by the department vide order dt. 27.11.2002 because of fact that petitioner's husband was suffering from cancer at that time and therefore, he could not have joined at transferred paces. It may be noticed again that the transfer orders were of the years 1993 and 1997 and petitioner's husband retired on 30.09.1999 and died on 19.04.2000. It is submitted that said transfer orders were cancelled only by taking the human approach and during serious ailment the petitioner's husband could not have joined duties away from Jodhpur. Allegation that the petitioner's husband un -authorisedly occupied the Government Accommodation was only because that he was transferred away from Jodhpur and, therefore, he could not have occupied the Government Accommodation but in view of the subsequent order dt. 27.11.2002, the petitioner was living at the Jodhpur where he was posted, and continuation of occupation of the Government Accommodation by petitioner's husband cannot be said to be un -authorised occupation of the Government Accommodation.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that whether the petitioner's husband un -authorisedly occupied the Government Accommodation for any period, was never enquired during the long time service of the petitioner's husband and he was never found guilty for un -authorised occupation, therefore, no order for recovery of amount on account of alleged un -authorised accommodation of Government Building by the petitioner's husband could have been passed by the authority without holding enquiry, or after retirement of petitioner's husband or after his death.;