Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 757 (HP)

Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-16

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The writ petitioner, is, a widow of deceased Jagat Ram, whereupon whom, work charge status was conferred, on 1.1.2002. However, the demise of late Jagat Ram happened, on 17th March, 2007. Upon, his demise the petitioner, claims the benefit of family pension, yet the afore espousal, of, the petitioner, became denied to her. Consequently, the writ petitioner, through, the extant writ petition, asks, for, a mandamus being made, upon, the respondents, for, hers therefrom, becoming, granted family pension along with all incidental thereto benefits. 2. Though, the respondents contested, the availability, of, the afore benefit to the petitioner, and, the afore contest becomes rested, upon, the factum, vis-a-vis, the deceased Jagat Ram, upon, his completing 12 years of service, hence, his superannuating on 30.06.2016, (i) and, thereupon, the bestowings, of, the benefit(s), of Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules, either upon him or upon, his surviving spouse, rather becoming unvindicable. The afore contest can be rested, only, upon a perusal of Rule 54, of, the CCS Pension Rules, the relevant sub-rule (2) (i) whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter:- " 54. Family Pension. (1) The provision of this rule shall apply- (a)......................... (b).............................. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule 13-B and without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies- (i) after completion of one year of continuous service; or ..............." Though, on making a reading of sub rule (2) (i) of Rule 54, of, the CCS Pension Rules, it became imperative for the petitioner, to, establish, vis-a-vis, her deceased husband, expiring, after the latter completing one year, of, continuous service, (a) yet the petitioner can not be held to establish the afore drawn legal frontier, (b) inasmuch, as, the deceased became conferred, the, status, of, a regular employee, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, his completing the age of 58 years, (c) and, whereas, he was to under the relevant rules, hence retire thereat from service, reiteratedly hence, the requisite ordained therein tenet, qua his thereat completing, a, period of one year of continuous service, remained unsatiated. In other words, upon, superannuation, of, the deceased from government service, and, without his thereat completing the requisite period of one year, of, continuous service, under the respondents, hence, the petitioner becomes disentitled to the benefit of sub-rule (2)(i) of Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules. In other words, upon, superannuation, of, the deceased from government service, and, without his thereat completing the requisite period of one year, of, continuous service, under the respondents, hence, the petitioner becomes disentitled to the benefit of sub-rule (2)(i) of Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules. However, dehors, the afore the petitioner is yet entitled, to, the benefit of sub-rule (2) (iii), of, Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules, mandate whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- " 54. Family Pension. (1) The provision of this rule shall apply- (a)......................... (b).............................. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule 13-B and without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies- (i) ................ (ii) ............... (iii) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of pension, or compassionate allowances referred in these rules," inasmuch, as, even if assuming, the deceased became superannuated from service on 30.06.2006, as, borne out, from Annexure R-I to R-3, and, as appended with reply furnished, by the respondents concerned, to the writ petition, (a) given in contemporaneity thereof, the deceased not expiring, and, rather his demise occurring in the year 2007, and, obviously, when, upon, the happening, of, superannuation, of, the deceased husband, of, the petitioner, since 2001, and, upto his demise, hence, occurring in the year 2006, he obviously became, a, recipient of pension, (b) thereupon, within the ambit of sub-rule (2) (iii) of Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules, necessarily with her deceased husband, upon, his retirement , being, a, recipient of pension, she becomes entitled, to, family pension, and, in the amounts carried therein. 3. For the foregoing reasons, the extant petition, is, allowed, and, the respondents are directed, to, disburse family pension to the petitioner, in, terms of sub-rule (2) (iii) of Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules along with all other incidental thereto benefits. All pending applications also stand disposed of.