AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the Family Pension, Gratuity, Ex-gratia and other benefits etc. to the petitioner as her husband Sh. Mangal Ram died in employment and the arrears be paid alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Mangal Ram, son of Shri Sheo Dan, was appointed as Chowkidar/Keyman in the respondent-Public Health Department on work-charged basis w.e.f 03.05.1958. Mangal Ram had performed his duties at Narnaul, Bhiwani, and was lastly posted at Sanwar under the Public Health Division, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. While in harness, husband of the petitioner had died on 03.11.1988. It is submitted that accordingly, husband of the petitioner had rendered more than 30 years service. Ld. counsel contends that keeping in view the aforesaid facts, services of the husband of the petitioner were liable to be regularized in terms of Government Instructions issued from time to time.
As such, petitioner has made several applications and representations to the respondents. Despite that, not even a single penny has been paid to the petitioner by way of Ex-gratia or Contributory Provident Fund. In this regard, ld. counsel refers to the representations dated 09.12.1996 (Annexure P-1), 15.05.1997 (Annexure P-2), 23.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) and legal notice dated 11.12.2000 (Annexure P-4).
It is submitted that despite the aforesaid representations and legal notice submitted by the petitioner, respondents have failed to grant any pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
It is pointed out that case of the petitioner had even been recommended by the respondent No. 4 to Sub-Divisional Engineer, Public Health Sub-Division, Charkhi Dadri vide his letter dated 26.11.1996 (Annexure P-5). Despite that, no action has been taken thereupon.
The respondent No. 4 had also written to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 04.06.1998 (Annexure P-6) that deceased was working as work-charged cadre and he had been posted in the office of respondent No. 3; and, therefore, respondent No. 3 should be directed to give a report in this matter. Vide letter dated 29.06.1998 (Annexure P-8), it was informed that service book of the official i.e. deceased husband of the petitioner was not available and, therefore, needful could not be done. Ld. counsel submits that, however, even if that be so, from Annexure P-6, it is clear that deceased had been working on work-charged basis. Therefore, pensionary benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner.
It is further submitted that petitioner is entitled for Family Pension even if her husband was working on work-charged basis as he had rendered more than 30 years service. As such, it was the duty of the respondents to regularize the service of the husband of the petitioner, if not regularized during his service period. It is contended that this was not the fault of the deceased employee nor of the petitioner. In support, ld. counsel relies upon the following judgments: -
Divisional Forest Officer vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (P&H) : Law Finder Doc ID # 211966 2010 (3) S.C.T.557
Kanta Devi vs. State of Haryana and others Civil Writ Petition No.7506 of 1998 decided on 16.12.1999
Krishna Rani vs. State of Punjab and others Civil Writ Petition No.5016 of 1985 decided on 09.02.1989
Accordingly, ld. counsel prays that the present writ petition be allowed “with a direction to the respondents to grant the Family Pension, Gratuity, Ex-gratia and other benefits to the petitioner as her husband Shri Mangal Ram, died in employment and the arrears be paid alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.”
Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has pointed out that the husband of the petitioner had only worked with the respondents as a work-charged employee from 1958 to November 1968. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that Mangal Ram had worked up to 1988 is incorrect and unsubstantiated. Further, as per the relevant Rules, pension is not payable to a work-charged employee. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
It is the contention of the petitioner that her deceased husband, namely, Mangal Ram s/o of Shri Sheo Dan, had worked in the respondent-Public Health Department w.e.f. 03.05.1958 upto 03.11.1988. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said assertion of the petitioner. On a Court query that even if record was not available with the respondents, the petitioner would be having some record of the alleged employment of her husband from 1958 to 1988, such as his bank account statement which would reflect payment of his salary in his bank account for the said period, ld. counsel for the petitioner has stated that Mangal Ram was being paid his salary in cash. Thus, petitioner has been unable to controvert contention of the respondents that Mangal Ram had worked with the respondent only up to 1968.
Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that Mangal Ram had worked up to 1988, it is admitted by the petitioner that service of Mangal Ram was on work-charged basis. It has been contended that even if it was temporary service, petitioner is entitled to family pension. However, even the said contention of the ld. counsel for the petitioner is misconceived as it is not disputed that as per para No.8 and 9-(b) Chapter VI of the Civil Services Rules (Vol.II), Family Pension is not admissible to work-charged staff, which is reproduced as under:-
"(8)Widows or widowers of such Government employees as are governed by this Scheme will not be entitled to family pension under any other rules.
(9)This Scheme is not applicable to :-
(a)Staff paid from contingencies;
(b)Work-charged staff,
(c)Casual labour;
(d)Contract employees; and
(e)Employees without a minimum service of one year."
An identical issue has been dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court in Lakha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) (FB): Law Finder Doc Id# 723488 2016 (2) SLR 713. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
“Thus, we find that a work-charged employee is not entitled to be regularised by creating posts for him and that without regularisation, a work charged employee would not be entitled to pension or his legal heirs, the family pension.
XXXXX
16.Consequently, we hold that the work-charged employee cannot get pension unless his or her service were regularised. Similarly, the legal heirs of a deceased also cannot get family pension unless the services of the work-charged employee were regularised.”
Admittedly, services of Mangal Ram were never regularised. He had only worked on work charge basis. As such, as per the above judgment, petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits. Judgments relied upon by ld. counsel of the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and law.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal position. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.