Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1290 (RAJ)

Jhamaku Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2001-08-17

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
Honble KESHOTE, J.–By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for direction, directing the respondents to allow Family Pension Benefits to the petitioner from 1.3.1964 or from any other date which this Court thinks just and proper. (2). The facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, late Shri Lal Chand Bohra, was a permanent Government servant as Patwari, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan. He had served for about 10 years. He died while in service before 1.3.1964. At that time, there was no provision to provide family pension to the dependents of deceased employee. However, the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were came to be amended and Rules 268-A and 268-B have been inserted in these Rules. By virtue of this amendment in the Rules of 1951, the family pension was given to the dependents of the employees/officers who retired or died on or after 1.3.1964. The petitioners husband was expired prior to 1.3.1964 and therefore, she could not get this benefits. The representations were made for grant of the Family Pension Benefit to those who are dependents of the deceased employees who died before 1.3.1964 from different corners. Ultimately, the Government decided under its order No. F.1(50)FD(Gr.2)/82 dated 18.7.1988 to extend the benefits of the Family Pension to the widows of the Government employees/officers who retired or died prior to 1.3.1964. A copy of this order is placed on record at Page No. 10. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This order was made effective w.e.f. 1.4.1988. After this decision taken by the Government, the petitioner was given the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme under the order dated 23.6.1992 w.e.f. 1.11.1989. The petitioner in this petition claiming the Family Pension Benefits from 1.3.1964 and or from any other appropriate date fixes by this Court. (3). The reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents and claim of the petitioner has been contested. It is alleged that the case of the petitioner is not covered even under the Government Order dated 18.7.1988. It is stated that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr.2) Department order No. F.1(47)FD(Gr.2)/88-II Jaipur, dated 2.12.1989, where under these benefits were made effective from 1.11.1989 and accordingly, the benefits were given to the petitioner. (4). It is stated that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr.2) Department order No. F.1(47)FD(Gr.2)/88-II Jaipur, dated 2.12.1989, where under these benefits were made effective from 1.11.1989 and accordingly, the benefits were given to the petitioner. (4). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the extension of Family Pension Benefits only to the dependents of the employees who retired or died on or after 1.3.1964 is wholly arbitrary and it is clearly a piece of a provision which makes a hostile discrimination. It is contended that this cut of date of retirement or death of the Government employees/officers for benefits of family pension creats artificially two classes of employee i.e. who died or retired on or before 1.3.1964 and on or after that date, though basically, it is one and the same class. It is being a matter of the Family Pension is a socio-economic provision. This cut of date fixed is arbitrary. Alternatively it is contended that the case of the petitioner falls under the Government order dated 18.7.1988 but the petitioner has been given benefits from 1.11.1989, though, it was made effective from 1.4.1988, which is wholly arbitrary. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner replying to the defence taken by the respondents in the reply to the petitioner, contended that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Government order dated 18.7.1988. The Government Order dated 1.12.1989 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the petitioner and the reply to the petition filed by the respondents. (7). This petition was presented by the petitioner in the Court on 2.4.1993. The Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were amended prior to 16.6.1988 and in case the petitioner was really aggrieved of the denial of the Family Pension to the dependents of the employees/officers who died or retired on or before 1.3.1964, she should have taken the action in time against the same, which has not been done. The Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 were amended prior to 16.6.1988 and in case the petitioner was really aggrieved of the denial of the Family Pension to the dependents of the employees/officers who died or retired on or before 1.3.1964, she should have taken the action in time against the same, which has not been done. It also not the case of the petitioner that she has filed representation making her grievance against this alleged arbitrary action of the State, so she has never raised any such objections, prior to she has been given the pension by the respondents from 1.11.1989 vide order dated 23.6.1992. She appears to have been suddenly awakened and has chosen to file this petition. This claim made for extending the benefits of the Family Pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.1964, deserves no acceptance as it suffers from vices of delay and latches. The petitioner has not furnished any explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay. There is yet another reason for which this claim made by the petitioner for grant of Family pension to her from 1.3.1964 deserves no acceptance. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of Rules 268-A and 268-B of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951. Unless the validity of the Rules aforestated is questioned and this Court is declared the same to be ultra vires to the Constitution, this claim made by the petitioner is not tenable. (8). The next question which falls for consideration of this Court is that under which orders of the Government i.e. 18.7.1988 or 2.12.1989, the case of the petitioner does fall. (9). In the reply to the petition, the respondents given out that the petitioners husband was not the employee of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners husband has served the erstwhile Jaipur State. This factual averment made by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition have not been controverted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder in the case. The statement aforestated made by the respondents in their reply is correct if we go by the petitioners own case. In Para-3 to the petition, the petitioner admitted that her husband has died on 5.6.1942 and on that date notice of this fact may be taken that there State of Jaipur was in existence. In the year 1942, the State of Rajasthan was not formed. In Para-3 to the petition, the petitioner admitted that her husband has died on 5.6.1942 and on that date notice of this fact may be taken that there State of Jaipur was in existence. In the year 1942, the State of Rajasthan was not formed. From this undisputed fact, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner has died while serving the then erstwhile State of Jaipur and accordingly, he was not Government servant. (10). A bare perusal of these two orders of the Government leaves no doubt in my mind that under the first order dated 18.7.1988, the cases of widows of the Government servant i.e. servant of Rajasthan Government are covered. The second order 2.12.1989 has been passed by the State to cover the widows of those employees who retired or died while in service of erstwhile principally State of Rajasthan. There is merit in the reply of the respondents that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Government Order dated 2.12.1989. Under this order, the benefits of the Family Pension have been extended to the widows of this category w.e.f. 1.11.1989 and accordingly, the respondents is not committing any error in extending this benefit of the family pension to the petitioner effective from 1.11.1989. The claim made by the petitioner for giving the Family Pension to her effective from 1.4.1988 does not stand to any merits. The order to extend the benefits of family pension to the widows of employees/officers of erstwhile principally State of Rajasthan has been passed on 2.12.1989 and it was made effective from 1.11.1989. This order though has been passed on 2.12.1989 but the officers of the welfare State has not cared and bothered that this lady gets these benefits immediately. After a lapse of long period, sanction of family pension is made in favour of the petitioner i.e. vide order dated 25.6.1992. The poor old lady has been deprived of the benefits of the family pension for a period of more than two years. She has been deprived of the amount of the benefits of the family pension from 1.11.1989 till the date on which the same were paid to her. The pension is not bounty but a right and withholding of the same for a long period by the respondents resulted in loss to the petitioner. She has been deprived of the amount of the benefits of the family pension from 1.11.1989 till the date on which the same were paid to her. The pension is not bounty but a right and withholding of the same for a long period by the respondents resulted in loss to the petitioner. This loss is to be compensated by awarding her interest on the amounts of pension. The respondents have not furnished any explanation good, bad or indifferent for this inordinate delay made by them in sanction of the family pension in favour of the petitioner and to give her actual benefits thereof. It is also not the case of the respondents that this delay in sanction and actual payments of amount of Family Pension attributed to the petitioner. This delay is attributed to the respondents. It is a case where immediately after order dated 1.12.1989, the family pension is not paid to the petitioner by the respondents. The family pension was to given to the petitioner for months together without any jurisdiction. The petitioner is to be awarded simple interest @ 18% per annum on the arrears of the family pension. Though, on the merits, I do not find any substance in the claim made by the petitioner but the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the interest on arrears of the pension calculated from 1.11.1989 till the date of the payment thereof. The amount of the interest payable to the petitioner shall be determined by the Department within one month of receipt of this order and the amount so arrived at on calculation thereof to be paid to the petitioner within next 15 days. The compliance of this order be reported to the Court. The office is directed to sent a copy of this order to respondent No.4 forthwith. The petition is allowed to this extend only. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of this petition to the petitioner.