Kanta Rathore vs State of M. P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Seeking grant of family pension and challenging the action of the respondents in not granting family pension to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Late Shri Ram Dayal Rathore was working as a ''Patwari''. Even though, he was initially removed from service but subsequently he was reinstated and then retired from service. Now, as family pension is denied to the petitioner after her husband''s death, this writ petition is filed.

Having heard Shri Rajnish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that petitioner''s husband was working as a ''Patwari'' and certain departmental proceedings were initiated against him for misconduct and after conducting an enquiry as required under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, his services were terminated.

Finally, the matter went before the Commissioner, Bhopal on an appeal filed by the petitioner u/s 23 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and vide order Annexure P-1 dated 10/06/96, the appeal was allowed. The order of termination was modified and instead, petitioner was directed to be reinstated. However, the appellate authority while reinstating the petitioner directed that the petitioner shall be inducted in service and benefit of the past service rendered cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated without granting him any benefit of the past service. It is therefore clear from the order of the appellate authority Annexure P-1 dated 10/06/96 that after his reinstatement in pursuance to the said order, the entire benefit accruing to the petitioner''s husband by virtue of the past service has been curtailed. This order has attained finality. Petitioner''s husband joined in pursuance to the same and retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

Now, as the services of the petitioner''s husband is counted with effect from the date of his reinstatement, the qualifying service for grant of family pension is not attained and it is on this count, the family pension is denied to the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Jain pointed out that as the reinstatement of the petitioner on allowing his appeal was without counting the past service rendered, petitioner does not fulfil the qualifying service as required under the law for grant of family pension.

Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner''s husband is reinstated. He is entitled to consequential benefit and past service should have been counted. The fact remains that while allowing the appeal on 10/06/96, the appellate authority has clearly allowed the appeal by holding that the benefit of past service cannot be granted. This order has attained finality and, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of counting the past service. The services rendered by the petitioner''s husband prior to his reinstatement in pursuance to the appellate order Annexure P-1 dated 10/06/96 cannot be counted and now ignoring all these aspects of the matter, this Court cannot grant any benefit to the petitioner. Once, the order of the appellate authority has attained finality and petitioner''s husband has taken advantage of this order, no further benefit can be granted to the petitioner contrary to the decision of the appellate authority. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding no case made out for interference, this petition is dismissed.