Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. ... vs Phooli Devi & Others Reported In 2003 (1) ... on 22 April, 2011
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 09131/2009 D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application (Inward) No. 18525 dated 13.10.2009 Date of Order :: 22nd April, 2011 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE BHAGWATI, J.):
This intra court appeal has been preferred with a delay of 43 days.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 43 days is condoned and the application filed under Section5 of the Limitation Act stands disposed of.
3. Challenge in this intra court appeal is to the order dated 2nd December 2008 rendered by the Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4764/2002, whereby he allowed the writ petition and held the respondent-petitioner entitled to receive family pension w.e.f. 23.6.1968 after expiry of period of one year from the date her husband was last heard of i.e. 23.6.1967 and consequently directed the appellants to grant terminal benefits to the respondent-petitioner treating her to be a widow of deceased government servant, taking the date 23.6.1968 as the basis for calculating terminal benefits, with interest @ 6% per annum.
4. Heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants on the question of admission and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, it is noticed that non grant of family pension and non grant of gratuity is contrary to the proviso of Rule 268B of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Gratuity is a valuable right of an employee, which cannot be withheld under any circumstance. Albeit the appellants are found to have terminated the service of the husband of the respondent-petitioner vide order dated 27.8.1971, but that was done without giving an opportunity of hearing and communicating the same to the family of the deceased. It is further noticed that under rule 268-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, period of one year has been provided for grant of family pension in relation to missing persons and it has been prescribed that if a Government servant is unheard of for more than a period of one year, the family pension at the rate prescribed under Rule 268C shall be sanctioned and authorized to the member of his / her family, as defined under Rule 268D on submission of an application along-with Indemnity Bond and Affidavit in the prescribed bond. In the instant case, since the whereabouts of the husband of the respondent-petitioner were not known w.e.f. 23.6.1967, as such it was bounden duty of the appellants-Department to grant the family pension immediately after completion of one year. The Single Bench, placing reliance upon the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Versus Phooli Devi & Others reported in 2003 (1) WLC (Raj.) 479 and Smt. Shakuntala Kanwar Versus Union of India & Others reported in 2002 (4) WLC (Raj.) 315, has rightly allowed the writ petition and held the wife of the respondent-petitioner entitled to receive the family pension and gratuity.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants utterly failed to convince us to take a contrary to that of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge and the impugned order warrants no intervention.
7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this intra court appeal and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
8. Consequent upon the dismissal of special appeal, the stay application does not survive and that also stands dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. (ARUN MISHRA), C.J. DK/