Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Others on 4 May, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 04, 2012
1. Civil Writ Petition No.1169 of 2011
Balwinder Kaur
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
2. Civil Writ Petition No.21596 of 2011
Kushma Devi & another
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
3. Civil Writ Petition No.8046 of 2011
Bhupinder Kaur & another
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CWP No.1169 of 2011 [2]
4. Civil Writ Petition No.16086 of 2011
Baljit Kaur & another
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
5. Civil Writ Petition No.1204 of 2011
Davinder Kaur @ Davinderpal Kaur
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
6. Civil Writ Petition No.1359 of 2011
Anita Kumari & another
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CWP No.1169 of 2011 [3]
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
. . .
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
. . .
PRESENT: - Mr. Ramesh Goyal and Mr. J.S. Maanipur,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab.
. . .
Surya Kant, J (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.1169 of 2011; Civil Writ Petition No.21596 of 2011; Civil Writ Petition No.8046 of 2011; Civil Writ Petition No.16086 of 2011; Civil Writ Petition No.1204 of 2011; and Civil Writ Petition No.1359 of 2011 as common issues are involved in these cases.
2. Facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.1169 of 2011 titled "Balwinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & others".
3. The petitioner while seeking quashing of order dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-7) seeks a further direction for deemed regularisation of services of her deceased husband and CWP No.1169 of 2011 [4] consequential grant of Family Pension to her.
4. The husband of the petitioner was possessing qualification of Matriculation with ITI (Electrician) Diploma when he was appointed as Pump Operator through Employment Exchange on 1.10.1989 in the respondent-Department. He was appointed against a vacant post though on daily wages. The case of the petitioner's husband for regularisation of his services in terms of Government Policy dated 23.1.2001 was duly recommended on 1.2.2001 but before any formal decision could be taken, he unfortunately died on 12.5.2009 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children. Since the services of petitioner's husband were not formally regularised, the respondents have turned down her claim for 'Family Pension' prompting her to approach this Court seeking directions/ reliefs briefly noticed above.
5. Reliance is placed on an order dated 12.5.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.20731 of 2008 titled "Harjinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & others" directing in almost similar circumstances to issue an order of regularisation of services of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner and grant Family Pension to her from the date he died. The said order was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.984 of 2010 decided on 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-4). The writ-petitioner in that case was CWP No.1169 of 2011 [5] thereafter granted Family Pension vide order dated 3.1.2011 (Annexure P-5). I do not find any distinction between the two cases either on facts or principle of law and equity.
6. I say so for the reason that the case of the petitioner's husband for regularisation of services was also recommended but it was kept pending for years denying him the status of a regular employee before his untimely death. It is indeed not disputed that if a regular employee dies while in service, one of his dependent family member is entitled to 'Family Pension' irrespective of the length of service of the deceased employee. In the case in hand, husband of the petitioner served for 10 years against a vacant post for which he was fully qualified and was appointed through one of the prescribed mode of recruitment and was not a back door enterant.
7. learned State counsel relies upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & others vs. Surji Devi (Annexure R-1) to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to 'Family Pension' as in the absence of regularisation of services of her deceased husband, he was not working in a pensionable establishment.
8. In my considered view, the cited decision has no bearing on the facts of the case in hand. The deceased employee in CWP No.1169 of 2011 [6] that case was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and served in a non-pensionable establishment. On the other hand, the post of Pump Operator under the respondent-Department is a pensionable post. It has been held by this Court in a series of cases that work charge/ daily wage service rendered prior to regular appointment is countable towards 'qualifying service' for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.
9. That being so and following the view taken in Harjinder Kaur's case (supra), I allow these writ petitions; quash the impugned orders; and direct the respondents to formally regularise services of the deceased employees and thereafter grant Family Pension from the date(s) of their death. Arrears of Family Pension shall be paid to the petitioner(s) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner(s) shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. Any other benefit to which the family members are entitled to in accordance with Government Policies, shall also be granted within the stipulated period.
(Surya Kant)
May 04, 2012 Judge
avin