State of Raj. vs Smt. Safedi Devi and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellants assailing the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below.

Non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for release of her family pension to which she became entitled for on account of death of her husband who joined service in the government as Cattle Guard on 1st February, 1980 and while in service he died on 20th July, 1995 where he was working on the workcharged basis. After his death, when family pension was not released to her, she questioned the same by filing a civil suit. Under Workcharged Service Rules, 1964, an employee who is initially appointed under workcharged, he becomes entitled for seeking declaration of semipermanent status and also permanent status on completion of 2 & 10 years of service under Rule 3(ii) & (iii) of the Rules. Her husband completed more than 10 years of service and was required to get declaration of being a permanent employee under the Rules, but no order to this effect has been passed by the Government.

Only grievance raised by appellant before learned trial Judge and also before court of appeal was that he being an employee of the workcharged rules her husband was not entitled for pension even if he has rendered more than qualifying service provided under the Rules.

Counsel for appellant further submits that suit itself was not maintainable. Since her husband was a workman and any dispute if arose, only remedy available to the non-petitionerplaintiff was to raise industrial dispute.

This objection was not raised before the court below. Even in opinion of this Court is without any substance for the reason that she was not a workman under Industrial Disputes Act who is claiming family pension on account of death of her husband who served the government.

Both the courts below have decided against the appellant and recorded concurrent finding of fact that she is entitled for family pension. Counsel for non-petitioner-plaintiff has brought to the notice ofThis Court that this issue has been decided byThis Court in Ismail Khan v. State of Raj. 1986 RLR 24 holding that workcharged employees are also entitled for pension under Rule 179 of Rules, 1951.

This Court does not find any substantial question of law which emerge for consideration in the instant appeal.

Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.