Case: Anandi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Judges | Mohammad Rafiq, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure |
| Citation | RLW 2008 (4) Raj 2954 (1) |
| Judgement Date | December 02, 2008 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Mohammad Rafiq, J., (Jaipur Bench)
-
This writ petition has been directed against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 31.10.2000 whereby, the appeal of the petitioner filed by her for giving her pensionary benefits, was dismissed.
-
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash and set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal dated 31.10.2000 and also direct the respondents to declare her husband as presumed to be dead under Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and she may be allowed family pension w.e.f. 23.6.1967 i.e. the date of disappearance of her husband till date under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Chapter 23-A together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its accrual with the further prayer to direct the respondents to allow gratuity to her along with interest @ 12% p.a. From the date of accrual to pendent lite calculating the same for the period 25.3.1956 to 23.6.1967 for a period of 11 years.
-
Facts in brief as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner's husband Shri Madan Lal Sharma was initially appointed on the post of Vaidya in Ayurved Department, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer. He joined his duties on the above post on 25.3.1956 at Ayurved Hospital, Isroda, District Alwar. Shri Madan Lal Sharma disappeared during service on 23.6.1967 from his place of posting. When for a long time, whereabouts of Shri Madan Lal Sharma could not be known to the petitioner, petitioner applied to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Savarda, Panchayat Samiti, Dudu, Pursuant therefore, Sarpanch and Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Jaipur issued certificates dated 26.6.1979 and 3.3.1981, respectively, presuming that Shri Madan Lal Sharma has died.
-
Thereafter, through the letter of the Additional Director, Office of the Director Ayurved Department Rajasthan, Ajmer, petitioner came to know that services of her husband were terminated long ago vide order dated 27.8.1971 without following the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and without giving opportunity of hearing thereby communicating the family of Shri Madan Lal Sharma (the delinquent). Petitioner approached the competent authorities for giving her family pension and gratuity but her request was not entertained by the competent authorities on the ground that husband of the petitioner Shri Madan Lal Sharma could not qualify the minimum qualifying period of 20 years for the purposes of grant of pension. Petitioner approached to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur for redressal of her grievances, but the learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2000 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
-
I have heard learned Deputy Government Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
-
The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that neither the respondents have sanctioned the family pension to the petitioner nor considered the case of gratuity. Refusal by the respondents for family pension as well as gratuity was contrary to proviso of Rule 268B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
-
Petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Phooli Devi and Ors. reported in 2003(1) WLC (Raj.) 479 and further in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Kanwar v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2002(4) WLC (Raj.) 315 and Single Bench judgments of this Court in Kaushlendra Singh Naruka v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2000(1) WLC (Raj.) 723 and Indira Devi (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan and...
To continue reading
Request your trial