Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 817 (RAJ)

Man Kanwar v. Director, Pension Department

1998-07-30

J.C.VERMA

body1998
Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner Smt. Man Kanwar is a widow of Shri Mool Singh, LHC No. 3370 CP. Her husband died while serving in the police line on 4.10.1987 leaving behind the petitioner, her two minor children and daughter Rajesh Kanwar from his first wife. It is stated that the petitioner and Rajesh Kanwar were granted 50% of Rs. 488/- as family pension i.e. Rs. 244/-, for the period from 5.10.1987 to 4.10.1994 and thereafter Rs. 150/- as issued by the order of the Director, Pension Department, orders passed on 30.7.1988 and 8.10.1988. It is stated that Rajesh Kanwar who was getting 50% of the pension not married on 28.4.1991 and, therefore, on the marriage of the daughter, the pension payable to the daughter was stopped as per the provisions of Rule 68(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pen- sion) Rules, 1996. It is the contention of the petitioner that the pension which was being paid to the daughter, on having married should have reverted back in full to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 488/- from 28.4.1991 to 4.10.1994 and Rs. 300/- thereafter with Dearness relief as payable from time to time. Number of registered notices were sent. Legal notices were also sent which were duly received, but there was total silence on the part of the respondents. Not only no action was taken but even the reminders and notices were not acknowledge. Ultimately, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing the present writ petition with the prayers as mentioned above. (2). Reply to the writ petition had been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. The facts are not disputed. It is stated that the respondent had no knowledge that the daughter of the deceased pensioner had married on 28.4.1991. However, it is admitted that in case the daughter is married, the pension is stopped to the daughter and the pension reverts back to the family. (3). The respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police has also filed a reply. It is stated that the respondent had no knowledge that the daughter of the deceased pensioner had married on 28.4.1991. However, it is admitted that in case the daughter is married, the pension is stopped to the daughter and the pension reverts back to the family. (3). The respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police has also filed a reply. Most interestingly the Superintendent of Police who belongs to the Police Department had taken a stand that the petitioner had not proved the fact that her daughter Rajesh Kanwar had got married or that the pension had been stopped to Rajesh Kanwar and it is further submitted that in case any proof is placed on record to the effect that the daughter of the deceased Rajesh Kanwar had been married on 28.4.1991, the pension would be released to the petitioner. (4). Today Shri M.L. Naredi, counsel for the State had informed the court that investigation/verification has been made by the police on 5.3.1998 and after verification it has been found that the daughter of the pensioner had married in April 1991 and the pension matter of the petitioner has been referred to the pension de- partment. In view of the submission made, the petition is to be allowed. (5). The present case in hand is of the category where a real apathy has been shown by the respondents. Since 1991, the petitioner had been claiming the reverting back of the share of the pension which stood stopped to her daughter on the reason that the daughter had married. Admittedly, the pension stands stopped to the married daughter, but still the respondents were averring in the written state- ment that they had no knowledge of the marriage of the daughter of the deceased. If it had been so, the pension of the daughter could not have been stopped. The respondents stopped the share of the pension to the daughter only on the ground that she had married and under law the share of that pension was to revert back to the widow. On filing the writ petition in the year 1997, the police authorities mo- ved in action whereas all her representations and legal notices issued earlier to filing of the writ petition were ignored by the department and also by the Director, Pension. On filing the writ petition in the year 1997, the police authorities mo- ved in action whereas all her representations and legal notices issued earlier to filing of the writ petition were ignored by the department and also by the Director, Pension. It is high time that the public authorities which are entrusted with the public duties wake up to the grievances of the public and start functioning when the matter is brought to their notice. Un-necessarily, the widows/pensioners are forced to knock at the door of the court for issuance of the writ of mandamus or direction which un-necessary litigation and expenses could have been avoided, had the authorities proceeded enquiring into the matter. However, in the present case, when the share of the pension payable to the daughter Rajesh Kanwar was stopped on her having married, what else verifications or investigations are needed to find the fact whether she is married or not. The State does owe some duty to the citizens through its officers and specifically to the employees who have served the State and earned the pension. In the present case State has failed in its duties and it was only after four years that they were able to verify that the daughter had married and pension is payable to the widow of the deceased police personnel. (6). The writ petition is allowed. The arrears of pension as demanded for the period in question as narrated above shall be paid within a period of three months with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the cost which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- which is to be paid by the State of Rajasthan to the petitioner by way of payee cheque or shall be included in the arrear while calcula- ting the arrears of pension.