JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Late Balwant Singh was appointed as, a J.B.T. Teacher on October 19, 1969 on ad hoc basis. His services were later on regularised w.e.f. January 1, 1979. He died on July 19, 1979. His widow claimed family pension from the respondents. Having failed to get any pension, she has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
2. In the written statement filed On behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioners husband had not completed one years regular service as required under Rule 6.16(D) read with Append ix-I of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume- II. As such, the respondents claim that the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, like family pension. It has been further averred that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioner’s husband had worked upto July 19, 1979 with 391 days breaks in service from time to time. The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioner was provided employment as per her qualifications.
3. I have heard Mr. J. S. Maanipur for the petitioner and Mr. Jaswant Singh for the respondents. Mr. Maanipur has pointed out . that the provisions of Rule 6.16 (D) and Appendix-I had been omitted. He further submits that in accordance with Rule 6.17, the petitioner is . entitled to the grant of family pension. Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 6.16 (D) and Appendix-I had been omitted from the Statute book even before the filing of the written statement.
4. Admittedly, Balwant Singh had served the State from October 19, 1969 to July 19, 1979. He was working on regular basis prior to his death. If the family of a person, who has worked on regular basis for a period of one year is eligible for the grant of family pension, there appears to be no reasonable basis for denying the family pension when the bread-winner had worked for almost nine years and had been appointed on regular basis prior to his death. Such a course of action is totally arbitrary and unfair. Balwant Singh was a regular employee prior to his death and he had served for almost nine years The petitioner was thus entitled to the grant of family pension and the action of the respondents in declining it was wholly arbitrary. In, Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 223 (F.B.), the Full Bench of this. Court has held that the service rendered on workcharge basis has to be taken, into consideration for the purpose of determining the pensionary rights of an employee. The service on ad hoc basis cannot by any process, of law or logic be at a lower pedestal than the service on workcharged basis. I am, therefore, of the, view that the ad hoc service had to be taken into consideration before determining the pensionary rights of the employee or his family.
5. An objection regarding delay has also been raised. Denial of pension gives recurring cause of action. The claim for the grant of pension cannot be declined on the mere ground of delay. In fact the default of the respondents in not granting pension cannot be the basis for declining relief to the petitioner.
6. I accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for the grant of family pension in accordance with the existing rules. The claim shall be considered on the hypothesis that the petitioner has completed more than eight years of service. The petitioner is also held entitled to her costs, which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. The respondents shall do the needful within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment.