- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for directing the State of Rajasthan to provide the widows of the Contributors of Jodhpur Provident Fund an opportunity to opt for family pension and for paying family pension to them on their so opting on and from the date the Contributors of Jodhpur Provident Fund have been given the pensionary benefits. The case of the petitioner may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE petitioner is the Jodhpur Branch of the Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj. Its members are pensionholders of Rajasthan including the contributors of the erstwhile Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund. THEse contributors filed a writ petition praying that they should be given an opportunity to opt for pensioary benefits. It was allowed on September 3, 1985. THE State of Rajasthan filed an appeal. It was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on March 11, 1987. THE judgments of the Single Bench & the Division Bench are reported in Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (1) W. L. N. 633 and State of Rajasthan v. Retired C. P. F. Holders Association, Jodhpur, 1987 (1) W. L. N. 476 (D. B.) respctively THE special leave petition filed by the State Government was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In compliance of the judgment of this Court, memorandum Anx R/l was issued by State Government on October 17, 1987. Another Memorandum Anx. 1 simplifying the procedure for the grant of pension to these contributors of provident fund was issued on March 8, 1988 and options were invited from these contributors. Shri Suraj Karan Mathur retired as office Superintendent. Collectorate, Sirohi on August 4, 1967 and died on August 30, 1985, leaving behind his widow Smt. Chandkaur Mathur. She moved an application Anx. 2 for the grant of family pension. List enclosed with the writ petition contains the names of ten widows of the retired similar Government employees. THE President of the petitioner also requested the Director, Pension, Rajasthan, Jaipur to grant family pension to these widows. THE Government of Rajasthan has issued an order 3 dated March 10, 1987 for the grant of pension to the widows of the workcharged employees subsequently absorbed on regular post and dying without exercising option for pension. If the husbands of these widows had been alive on the date on which the Anx. R/1 was issued, they would have opted for the pension. THE widows of the persons who were alive on the date of the order Anx. R/l are getting pension but not the widows whose husbands died prior to the issuance of this order. THE denial of family pension to those widows is clerly arbitrary It is a hostile discrimination. This situtation is a creation of the State of Rajasthan itself. The State of Rajasthan has filed its reply seriously opposing the writ petition on the ground of limitation, maintainability, alternate remedy besides other grounds. It has also been aerred that these contributors did not opt for pension despite having several opportunities, they have retired more than two decades ago after availing all the benefits under the Jodhpur Contributrory Provident Fund Rules, their widows are not now entitled to opt for the pension, the petitioner is not a registered body, it had no authority to file such a writ and it has no right to maintain it. The widows of the Contributors of the Jodhpur Provident Fund do not belong to the class of the contributry who are alive. There is no question of any discrimination. There is no force in the objection of the learned Additional Advocate General that the writ petition is time barred. The cause of action for filing the writ petition arose after the issuance of the memorandum Anx. R/l dated October 17, 1987 and Anx. 1 dated March 8, 1988, granting options to the employees who had retired after availing of the retiring benefits under the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Rules. Admittedly, this writ petition was filed on August 12, 1988. It cannot be said that the writ petition is time barred. The objection that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of necessary particulars of the retired Government servant who had died leaving behind their widows has also no force. A list of their widows is attached with the writ petition. Their cases similar to the case of Smt. Chandkanwar Mathur, referred to in para No. 5 of the writ petition. In other words their husbands were contributors under the Jodhpur Provident Fund Rules, they retired as the employees of the Government of Rajasthan and they died before the issuance of the said circulars Anx. R/l and Anx. 1. All these widows belong to the weaker section of the Society. While examining the beneficial provisions relating to the pension and family pension, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, (3) as foll - "the discernible, purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the Courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane. " It has been held in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, (2) that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from the breach of public duty or for violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional and legal provision.
(3.) THERE is also no force in the objection that the petitioner had alternate remedy before the Service Appellate Tribunal. It cannot be disputed that the prayers sought by the petitioner could not be granted by the Service Appellate Tribunal. The question for consideration in this case is whether there is a hostile discrimination between the Ex. employees who died before the issuance of the memorandums Anx. R/l and Anx. 1 and those dying thereafter. It is not in dispute that the Ex. employees of both the categories did not opt for family pension and they retired after availing themselves of the retiring benefits under the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Rules. It has been observed in State of Rajasthan v. Retired C. P. F. Holders Association, (3), as follows : - "13. All the C. P. F. Holders were governed by one scheme and when they became employees of the Government of Rajasthan by virtue of the merger of the Princely State in which they were employed they constituted one category. It was only the age factor which differentiated one from the other. The result therefore, was that some of them retired early and were given only one option after their becoming employees of the Government of Rajasthan, while others, who had retired at a later date, has a number of opportunities to opt for pension. Thus there cannot be any dispute on the point that all the C. P. F. Holders formed a class in themselves and were similarly situated. " If the husbands of the widows would have been alive on the date of the issuance of the said memorandum, they would have also opted for the pension under the changed circumstances and after their death, their widows would have been gett- ing family pension as widows of the Ex. employees. If the memorandum Anx. R/l would have been issued prior to the death of the husbands of the widows, they would have also opted for the pension. These widows or their husbands were not in any way responsible for the delay caused in the issuance of this memorandum. It was issued after the judgments of this Court reported in Retired C. P. F. Holders Association vs. State of Rajasthan, (supra) State of Rajasthan vs. Retired C. P. F. Holders Association (supra ). Note No, 3 page 296 under Rule 268-H, Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 runs as under: - "3. Attention is invited to Finance Department Memorandum dated 26. 9. 1964 (appearing as Government of Rajasthan's Decision No. 2 above) and to say that according to the aforesaid order an officer eligible to contributory provident Fund benefits who dies without exercising an option before the prescribed date, shall be deemed to have retained the existing Contributory Provident Fund benefits. A question has been raised as to whether in such cases the family of a Government servant canbe given the right to exercise the required option. The matter has been considered and it has been decided that in such a contingency, the administrative authority, at its discretion may give the benefits of the Pension Rules alongwith the New Family Pension Rules in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund benefits, where such a request is specifically made by nominee or nominees validly nominated by the subscriber, or in their absence by all the members of the family as defined in the Contributory Provident Fund Rules. If all these latter are not agreed on making such a request, then the Contributory Provident Fund money will bepaid to them according to the provisions of the Rules in this regard. " It is thus clear that the widows and other members of the family were given the right to exercise the required option. ;