JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The claim made by the petitioner Smt. Indrawati in the present case is with regard to the grant of family pension to her. The claim is based on the fact that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as J.B.T. teacher in joint Punjab on October 6, 1962 and on the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab, the State of Haryana came into existence and the services of the husband of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Haryana. On June 21, 1967 the husband of the petitioner, namely Sher Singh died. Subsequently, vide notification dated March 29, 1983 Haryana Government amended Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11, as applicable to the Haryana Government Employees whereby the amendment was made in the aforesaid rules and the amended rules were called Punjab Civil Services Vol. II (Haryana First Amendment) Rules, 1983. The claim of the petitioner is that in fact by the aforesaid amendment the qualifying service is reduced from five years to one year. In view of the said amendment the petitioner claims that she became entitled to the family pension but vide order dated May 26, 1999 which has been appended as Annexure P-2 with the present writ petition the claim made by the petitioner was rejected. The
only reason given for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was that the service of the deceased employee was less than five years and therefore, she was not entitled to the family pension.
2. Shri Satbir Godara learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact while passing orders dated May 26, 1999, the competent authority has not taken into consideration the amended rules dated March 29, 1983 and therefore, the order Annexure P/2 on the face of it is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand Shri Girish Agnihotri, Learned Additional Advocate General, points out there in fact vide order dated November 19, 2001 which has been appended as Annexure R/I1 to the written statement the Accountant General (A&E) Haryana wrote to the District Primary Education Officer, Hisar to re-examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the fact that the family of those employees who died while in service on or after July 1, 1964 with one year continuous service without break are also entitled to family pension with effect from 1.12.1979 if they fulfil other conditions. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations made by the Accountant.General, Shri Agnihotri informs that the matter of the family pension of the petitioner was examined and ultimately vide order dated January 31, 2002 appended as Annexure R/IV to the written statement the petitioner was allowed the family pension of Rs. 125/- with effect from December 1, 1979, Rs. 375/- with effect from January 1, 1986 and Rs. 1275/- with effect from January 1, 1996 per month. On the basis of the aforesaid order Annexure R/IV Shri Girish Agnihotri submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
3. On the other hand Shri Satbir Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner says that in fact the petitioner has always been persisting and claiming that she was entitled to the family pension on the basis of the amended Rules of 1983. However, respondents have wrongly rejected her claim without any reason and it was only her persistence which bore out fruits and the Accountant General (A&E) vide communication Annexure R/II dated November 19, 2001 asked the District Primary Education Officer to re-open the matter. On the basis of that learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no justification earlier also to reject the claim of family pension of the petitioner and, therefore, when the same has now been sanctioned and granted, the petitioner who is a poor widow is also entitled to interest upon the delayed payment.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the claim of interest on delayed payment made by the petitioner is fully justified. In fact it is apparent that the petitioner had relied upon amendment in the rules made on March 29, 1983 vide Annexure P/3. However, her claim was mechanically rejected vide order dated May 26, 1999 (Annexure P/2). It is only during the pendency of the present writ petition that the respondents have woken up from their slumber and re-opened the case of the petitioner. To my opinion, in view of the clear amendment in the rules, there is no justification to deny the claim of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the so called clarification dated June 24, 1999 (Annexure R-III) was merely an interpretation. The said interpretation was always being insisted by the petitioner earlier also.
5. In this view of the matter it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum (to be calculated at a simple rate) from the date of her entitlement to the date of final payment. The calculation of the interest and payment thereof shall be made by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. No costs.
The petition stands disposed of.
