Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1610 (RAJ)

Raj Kumari v. State of Rajasthan

2004-11-03

RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS

body2004
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that on account of the death of the husband of the petitioner, she is entitled to get the pensionary benefits and the respondent authorities may be directed to provide the same. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows:- 1. The husband of the petitioner was subjected to Departmental Enquiry under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals), Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1958") and without following the procedure prescribed under the said Rules, punishment of removal from the service was awarded vide order dated 19/25.1973 (Annexure 5). 2. Against the aforesaid order dated 19/25.1973 (Annexure 5), an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, but the same was rejected on the ground of delay, without going into the merits of the case. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that a criminal case was also lodged against the husband of the petitioner on the ground of embezzlement of the Government money. But in the criminal case, the husband of the petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 4.1980 (Annexure 7). 4. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner made his best efforts to get his case reconsidered for reinstatement in the service, but no attention was paid by the respondent authorities. Lastly, he was informed that since his appeal has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, his services cannot be reinstated. 5. In the meanwhile on 7.3.1993, the husband of the petitioner, died. Thereafter, the petitioner and her son made representations to the competent authorities, but the same were not given any heed by them. 6. TheTehsildar, Banswara vide letter dated 12.2004 (Annexure 11) informed the petitioner to submit the papers detailed in the order, so that the matter could be resolved. 7. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that with reference to the provisions of the Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1996") the petitioner is entitled to get the pensionary benefits. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the controversy involved in this case is pending decision before the Competent Authorities, but the representations have not been decided till date. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the controversy involved in this case is pending decision before the Competent Authorities, but the representations have not been decided till date. In these circumstances, the only relief claimed by the petitioner, in this writ petition is that the respondent No. 3 (The Collector, Banswara) may be directed to consider her representation. 9. Since the request of the petitioner is only for consideration of the representation, therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of , at the admission stage, by giving a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner and grant the relief to the petitioner if she is entitled to the same in accordance with law only. 10. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation within a period of fifteen days from today and the respondent No. 3 (The Collector, Banswara) is directed to consider and decide the same, either way, strictly in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order may be passed and the same may be communicated to the petitioner.