Savitri Devi vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The husband of the petitioner - Mam Chand Sharma, was employed as Patwari in the office of respondent No. 4 prior

to 1.8.1937. He retired from the post in August, 1967. The case of the petitioner is that Mam Chand (deceased) completed 42 years of service

and worked in the office of respondent No. 4 upto the age of 62 years. The age of superannuation was 58 years. After retirement, Mam Chand

represented for pensionary benefits as provided under the Pup-jab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana. However, the same

were denied.

The respondents case is that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits (family pension). The reason is that Mam Chand served upto the

age of 62 years instead of 58 years and had also received a reward of Rs. 150/- from the department.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for direction for quashing the Annexures P/2, P/4, P/8 and P/9 and for the

release of family pension to the petitioner.

Annexure P/2 is a letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar to Mam Chand Sharma, husband of the petitioner, in which it has been stated

that he has served upto 62 years of age and had received award/honorarium of Rs. 150/- after retirement and his service period is 42 years.

Hence, Mam Chand was not entitled to pension. Annexure P/4 is a letter again written by the 0Deputy Commissioner, Hissar to Mam Chand,

again reiterating that he is not entitled to pension and gratuity.

Annexure P/8 is again reiteration of the same in letter written by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner. Annexure P/9 is a letter regarding

liberalisation of pensionary benefits on the recommendation of Pay Commission. This letter is challenged for the reason that reference of annexure

P/9 was given in annexure P/8. The questions, therefore, arise are whether the petitioner''s husband was not entitled to pension because he served

after the period of superannuation and received some reward of Rs. 150/-? and whether the post on which the Mam 0Chand worked, was

pensionable post or not?

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Note-2 below Rule 2.3 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II (as applicable to the State of

Haryana). It has been clarified by the said note that the post of Patwari has been declared pensionable w.e.f. 1.8.1949.

Learned counsel for the State argued that where there are special rules, the Punjab Civil Services Rules will not be applicable and the husband

of the petitioner was governed by the Punjab Land Revenue Manual. However, the written statement itself finds mention of some rules of the Land

Revenue Manual. According to Rule 3.56-A, the pension is granted to Patwaris, who retire on or after 1st August, 1959. This provision will solve

the question and the answer to the second question, mentioned above, can be therefore, given in affirmative.

Learned State Counsel has read over Rule 3.56-A. He has relied on the provisions of Rule (b) of this rule. It is as under:-

(b). Patwaris, who retire on or after 1st August, 1959 can, if they so desire, get their pension calculated at the rate of:-

Number of complete years of qualifying X Average emoluments service since 1st August, 1949.

Besides they will be entitled to reward and the Government share of contribution to the Revenue Provident Fund. But they shall have to retire even

though physically fit, on attaining the age of 55 years. No extension of service will be permitted in their case.

Learned State counsel further argued that because the retired Patwaris are entitled to reward and the Government share of contribution to the

Revenue Provident fund, the Patwaris will not be entitled to pension. He has also argued that the Patwaris have to retire, even though physically fit,

at the age of 55 years and no extension will be permitted.

Be that as it may. The reward is to be given besides the other pensionary benefits because the line begins with the word ""Besides"". Moreover, if

the deceased was permitted to work beyond the age of 55 years, there is no explanation coming from the respondents as to why he was allowed

to work beyond that age.

When this is the position, the deceased cannot be blamed for working after 55 years. Moreover, it is not shown that if Mam Chand had

worked for a period beyond the age of 55 years, the pensionary benefits could be denied to him. Mam Chand died on 20.2.1982, as stated by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. The deceased was, therefore, entitled to pension and hence the petitioner also shall be entitled to family pension

as per rules.

This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Annexures P/2, P/4 and P/8 are quashed and the respondents are directed to release the family

pension to the petitioner as per rules. The benefits shall be restricted to a period of three years and two months, prior to the date of filing of the writ

petition, which was filed on 16.12.1986.

Let the needful be done within 4 months from today.