Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1991 (RAJ)

Phulwanti v. State of Rajasthan

2011-09-15

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to the respondents to pay family pension with effect from 1.12.1990 and for that purpose letter dated 19.1.1996 issued may be quashed and set aside. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband was working with the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation. He died on 30.11.1990 and he as subscriber of the CPF and did not opt for pensionary benefits, therefore, in pursuance of notice sent through Advocate, the amount of CPF in the tune of Rs. 42,562/- was paid to the petitioner being widow of late Luna Ram. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner's husband was member of CPF scheme but, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Walu vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 106/2011, decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 5.9.2003, the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefit, therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as per the service record the husband of the petitioner was subscriber of Contributory Provident Fund and as per Regulation 17 of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Employees' Service Regulations it is admitted position of the case that the husband of the petitioner did not opt for pension, so also, after sending notice for demand of justice the petitioner was paid the amount of contributory fund in the year 1993 which is accepted by the petitioner, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Ramamurthy vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2658 and another judgment reported in (1990) 4 SCC 207 , since the petitioner's husband who was member of CPF and had not opted for pension, the petitioner cannot claim pensionary benefits, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and further the petitioner is not disputing the fact of having received the amount of contributory provident fund in the year 1993. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and further the petitioner is not disputing the fact of having received the amount of contributory provident fund in the year 1993. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any regulation for grant of family pension which was existing at the time of death of the petitioner's husband, therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant for the purpose of present controversy because, in that case, the services were governed under the Rajasthan Service Rules and, here, in this case, there was no rule in existence with regard to grant of family pension in the Corporation. therefore, the facts of the cited case are not applicable upon the present case. More so, the adjudication made by Supreme Court in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents will apply. 6. In para 5 of the judgment in the case of V.K. Ramamurthy vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra), the following adjudication has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court : "5. In view of the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court explaining and distinguishing Nakara's case the conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner who retired in the year 1972 and did not exercise his option to come over to the Pension Scheme even though he was granted six opportunities is not entitled to opt for Pension Scheme at this length of time. The decision of Ghansham Das case on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, the Tribunal relied upon Nakara's case and granted the relief without considering that Nakara's decision has been distinguished in the Constitution Bench case of Krishena Kumar and other cases referred to supra. Therefore, dismissal of the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be held to be law laid down by this Court, in view of what has been stated in Krishena Kumar's case. Therefore, dismissal of the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be held to be law laid down by this Court, in view of what has been stated in Krishena Kumar's case. The other decision of this Court, in the case of R. Subramanian (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 881 of 1993) the Court merely relied upon the dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Tribunal in Ghansham Das case and disposed of the matter and, therefore, the same also cannot be held to be a aforesaid premises and in view of the legal position as discussed above the writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs." 7. In view of the above discussion, while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K. Ramamurthy's case (supra), this writ petition is hereby dismissed.