Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 255 (HP)

BHAGI DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-10-05

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2004
JUDGEMENT Factual position so far as relevant in determination of the controversy needs to be noted in brief. 2. Daulat Ram was appointed as Booking Clerk in the year 1957 by respondent No.2 i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Transport Earlier to that he was in the Army and he was discharged on 9.11.1946. he died in 1964 in harness after prolonged illness. 3 Bhagi Devi alias Indira Devi Wd/O late Daulat Ram filed original application as she was aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not granting the family pension even after lapse of 37 years. She bang 70 years old and village rustic could not get justice, therefore, she had darned family pension in pursuance to the Rules as incorporated in Rule 54 and 55 of the CCS. Pension Rules 1972 and also as per Section II i.e. Rules and Orders prior to 1986 Extension of Family Pension to those borne on pension able establishment but not covered earlier by family pension scheme. 4. She had therefore filed original application seeking following reliefs: (a) That the respondents be directed to pay family pension to the applicant continue in future and also release arrears on account of non-payment of family pension w.e.f the date of death of her husband i.e. 1964 along with interest as applicable in such like cases till final payment. (b) That the respondents may be directed to produce entire service record of the applicants deceased husband for the scrutiny of this Honble Tribunal. (c) Any other relief or order deemed fit and proper in the fads and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” 5. The respondents No.1. Le. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as Corporation) had filed reply wherein preliminary objection has been raised that Original application is barred by imitation. Since the deceased employee was in the service of HGT, therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay pension. In view of the notification issued by the state government the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On merits it is admitted that husband of the applicant was employee of HGT and that she had made several requests for grant of family pension. It was for the Himachal Pradesh government to pay family pension as deceased was their employee. In view of the notification issued by the state government the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On merits it is admitted that husband of the applicant was employee of HGT and that she had made several requests for grant of family pension. It was for the Himachal Pradesh government to pay family pension as deceased was their employee. The HRTC was formed in 1974 i.e 2.10.1974, therefore, replying respondent is not liable to pay person. 6 Respondent No.2 had adopted the reply filed by respondent No 1 i.e. HRTC. 7.We have heard Sh. B.N. Mehta, Advocate for the applicant and Sh. Marsh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Sh. Chirag B. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No 2. 8.Unfortunately Daulat Ram had died in harness. His widow Bhagi Devi alias Indira Devi who had been making representation was not granted any relief during her fife time and she had also died during the pendency of this original application, therefore, present applicants being sons of Daulat Ram and Bhagi Devi were substituted as applicants m her place. 9.Sectkxv-H (I) of Rules of Orders Prior to 1986, Appendix 19 under the heading of Extension of Family Pension to those borne on Pensionable Establishment but not covered earlier by Family Pension Scheme provides:- There are at present two Family Pension Scheme (1950 and 1964) incorporated in Rule 54 and 55 of the CCS. (Pension Rules, 1972). The 1950 Scheme was of a restricted nature In accordance with the provisions of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Family Pension Scheme, 1964, applies: - (a) to a Government servant entering service in a Pensionable establishment on or after the 1st January, 1964; and (b) to a Government servant who was in service on the 31st December, 1963, and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, contained in the Ministry of Finance, Office Memorandum Na9 (16)-E V(A)/63, dated the 31st December, 1963, as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules. 2. Initially, the Family; Pension Scheme, 1964, was a contributory one and employees eligible for the benefit of the Scheme were required to contribute two months emoluments out of me D.CR.G. However, with effect from 22.9.1977, this precondition was done away with. 3. 2. Initially, the Family; Pension Scheme, 1964, was a contributory one and employees eligible for the benefit of the Scheme were required to contribute two months emoluments out of me D.CR.G. However, with effect from 22.9.1977, this precondition was done away with. 3. A section of widows of erstwhile Government servants who were not covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, had filed writ petitions (Nos. 5870-93/81, 13181/84, 8446-51/83, 1001/84 and 12707/84 with Civil Appeal No 2225/85) in the Supreme Court of India claiming that the benefits of the Scheme may also be extended to them." 10. The appointment of Daulat Ram as Booking dale in the yea- 1957 is admitted. It is also admitted that he was m the employment of erstwhile HGT and died in the year 1964. But averred that liability of family pension is of Himachal Pradesh Government as the deceased husband of the applicant was the employee of HGT. it is also stated that in 1974, while transferring the Transport Department to the Transport Corporation the salary & benefits of the serving employees working under respondent No.2 were protected, whose services were transferred/absorbed n HRTC. Thus this fact coupled with the provisions of section 2 of the Family Pension Scheme supra and above all that respondent No. 2 had not contested claim of the applicant rather adopted the reply Bed by respondent No 1, meaning thereby that has been admitted the liability to pay the salary, pension and other benefits to which the deceased was entitled, it is the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay the Pensionary benefits to tie applicant. 11. As regards limitation, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to "S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and another, (2003), 1 SCC 184 where the claim was allowed after 40 years. It is therefore, contended that the applicant on not be ousted on the point of limitation following the ratio rendered in the case of the applicant is within limitation. 12. In view of the aforesaid original application is allowed. Respondent No.2 Its directed to calculate the amount towards pension of otter benefits payable to the Legal Representative of the deceased whatever is admissible in accordance with law and the same be paid along with interest @ 6% pa. within 3 months from today.