Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Brief facts as pleaded by the plaintiff while filing the suit in question may be noticed as thus; plaintiff is the widow of Sh. Bhim Sain Arora, who died on 04.04.2010 while posted as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. It was averred that the husband of the plaintiff was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Sirsa and thereafter, duly selected by the Selection Committee. Consequently, he was appointed as Clerk-cum-typist on ad hoc basis by the competent authority i.e. The Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'HSMITC) vide letter No.5551/4E dated 15.08.1975. His services were regularized by the department w.e.f. 21.08.1975 and he 3 of 9 RSA-2289-2019 (O&M) -4- worked on the said post up till 31.07.2002. Thereafter, HSMITC was closed by the Government of Haryana. On 31.10.2006 the deceased joined on the post of Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner on revised pay scale, where he was also given a new pay band. He, however, died on 04.04.2010 while in service as Clerk with the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. It was prayed that since the deceased had served HSMITC as regular Clerk- cum-Typist from 21.08.1975 to 31.07.2002, his earlier service should also have been included for all intents and purposes towards her service benefits etc. when he rejoined the services in the year 2006.

In the written statement, defendant inter alia submitted that the HSMITC was closed down w.e.f. 30.07.2002 and the services of all its employees including that of the husband of the plaintiff were terminated, as a result of which, they were relieved from their duties w.e.f. 31.07.2002. At that time, all the employees including the husband of the plaintiff were paid all their terminal benefits including gratuity, contributory pension fund, leave encashment etc. and hence, the relationship of Master and Servant between them ceased to exist from 31.07.2002. The plaintiff was also being paid family pension from HSMITC on account of her husband's earlier service with HSMITC. The State Government vide notification dated 21.06.2006 had given fresh appointment in Government Departments/Boards/Corporations to the retrenched employees of various Boards/Corporations including the husband of the plaintiff as a special case and it had been specifically clarified that in view of their fresh appointments in various Departments/Corporations etc. they would not be entitled to claim benefits of their previous services i.e. prior to their retrenchment and 4 of 9 RSA-2289-2019 (O&M) -5- also for the period when they remained out of service, as a result of such retrenchment. It was thus, submitted that the status of the husband of the plaintiff was one of retrenched employee of the Corporation as he had never been absorbed. Still further, when the husband of the plaintiff died in a road accident on 04.04.2010, Ex gratia amount of Rs.25,000/- as per the Service Rules alongwith outstanding amount of leave encashment earned, after reappointment, was also paid to the plaintiff by the office of defendant No.2. A prayer, therefore, was made for dismissal of the suit in question as the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for.

Trial Court did not find any merit in the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the same on the ground that the pension scheme was neither in existence in the previous organization i.e. HSMITC where the husband of the plaintiff was employed prior to 31.07.2002 nor did it exist in the subsequent organization which the husband of the plaintiff joined on 31.10.2006.

Lower Appellate Court while relying upon Savitri Devi vs. State of Haryana, 1996(2) RSJ 854 reversed the findings of the trial Court by holding that as per the 1964 rules, the legal heirs of an employee were entitled to family pension, even if, an employee died within a period of one year of joining his job. Learned Appellate Court further held that that since the deceased would have been definitely medically examined before joining, as per the exception given under Rule 4 of Family Pension Rules, the plaintiff would be entitled to family pension.

Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that no 5 of 9 RSA-2289-2019 (O&M) -6- doubt, the deceased was earlier employed with respondent No.4-department and worked there till the year 2002, however, once HSMITC closed down, the services of the deceased were terminated w.e.f. 30.07.2002 and all the benefits, which were due to the deceased, were duly paid to him. He further submits that it was only subsequently on 31.10.2006, the deceased was appointed as Clerk and died while in service on 04.04.2010. The appellant No.2-department had no concern with HSMITC and still further, at the time of joining in the year 2006, the deceased was fully aware and conscious of the terms and conditions, and had joined the department only after accepting all the terms and conditions, which was evident from the fact that he had also furnished an affidavit in that regard that he would not claim any benefits of his previous service with HSMITC and would abide by all the terms and conditions of Appointment Letter (Annexure A-1). Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to LPA No.1105 of 2017 titled as The State of Haryana and others versus Nathu Singh (decided on 29.05.2018), which was filed by the State Government in identical circumstances and had since been allowed. Learned counsel submits that thus, the issue and controversy involved in the case in hand already stood settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Nathu Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel has further reiterated that the husband of the plaintiff had never been absorbed in the Department and his status was only of a retrenched/terminated employee of HSMITC and this had to be appreciated from the fact that the deceased employee had remained out of service from 31.07.2002 to 12.10.2006 and thus, his subsequent 6 of 9 RSA-2289-2019 (O&M) -7- appointment from 31.10.2006 was a fresh one for all intents and purposes.