Urmila & Ors vs State & Ors on 24 March, 2009

                                   1

              S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 610/1997
        Urmila & Ors.         Vs.         State of Raj. & Anr.


               Date of Order           ::      24.03.2009


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

      Mr Deepak Bohra, for the petitioner/s.
      Mr Hemant Choudhary, for the respondents.
                               ...


      The petitioners by this petition for writ are claiming family

pension and all other death-cum-retiral benefits being heirs of late Sh.

Dharmendra Barath, who died while in service of Panchayat Samiti-

Jaisalmer on 24.10.1994.




      In brief facts of the case are that Sh. Dharmendra Barath faced

process of selection for appointment as Teacher Gr.III under Rajasthan

Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959. Though

selected, appointment was not accorded to him by creating some doubt

regarding the educational qualifications possessed by him, i.e. Higher

Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the same Sh. Dharmendra

Barath preferred a petition for writ before this Court, wherein an

interim order was passed in following terms:


              "In the meanwhile respondents may provisionally
       appoint petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr-III provided
       petitioner files written undertaking before Deputy
                                     2

        Registrar of this Hon'ble Court that in case Ann-1 is not
        found to be genuine he shall reimburse the respondents
        all the salaries and allowances drawn by him alongwith
        interest @ 24% p.a. It is clarified that the respondents
        shall free to carry on verification of said Annexure-1."


      The respondent, Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti- Jaisalmer

under the instructions of Chief Executive Officer cum Secretary, District

Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer dated 9.12.1992

accorded appointment to late Sh. Dharmendra Barath under an order

No.P.S. Jaislamer/Education/Appointment-1992-93.        The appointment

of Sh. Barath was made on probation for a period of two years in pay

scale of Rs.1200-250.    The appointment of Sh Barath was subject to

verification of qualification possessed by him. Unfortunately, Sh. Barath

while working as Teacher Gr.III died on 24.10.1994. The present

petitioners being legal heirs of late Sh. Barath by this petition for writ

are claiming family pension and other death-cum -retiral benefits. It is

urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that late Sh. Dharmendra

Barath was working with Panchayat Samiti - Jaisalmer in regular

capacity, and therefore, the petitioner No.1 being his widow and the

petitioners No.2 and 3 being his children are entitled for family pension.




      A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents

stating therein that the appointment of Sh. Dharmendra Barath was not

regular, therefore, family pension as per Rule 268-B(i) of the Rajasthan

Service Rules is not admissible. It is asserted by the respondents that
                                     3

the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not verified by the

Panchayat Samiti, and as such, no entitlement is there in favour of

petitioners for receiving family pension.




      Heard counsel for the petitioners and examined the record

available.




      Late Sh. Dharmendra Barath claimed appointment as Teacher

Gr.III being selected as a consequent to regular process of selection. The

respondents at their own questioned genuineness of the certificate

submitted by late Sh. Dharmendra Barath relating to his qualification.

The decision of the respondents was challenged by late Sh. Dharmendra

Barath by way of filing a petition for writ. True it is, that this Court

granted an interim direction to the respondents to employ Shri

Dharmendra Barath, however, the order of appointment no where refers

that appointment was given to him in pursuant to interim order. The

appointment to late Sh. Barath was given as per Rule 25 of the

Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 and he

was kept on probation     for a period of two years. The appointments

under Rules 25 of the Rules of 1959 are regular appointments and the

same can not be treated as irregular merely on the count that some

verification was required to be made by the respondents. Pertinent to

note here that so far as late Sh. Dharmendra Barath is concerned he by
                                     4

way of filing a writ petition before this Court reiterated that whatever

qualification possessed by him was genuine and recognized for all

purposes including for appointment of Teacher Gr.III as per the Rules of

1959. The verification of the qualification was required to be made by

the respondents, and no such verification is yet made.              If the

respondents were having any doubt about the qualification possessed by

late Sh. Dharmendra Barath, they should have acted diligently in this

regard, specially in the circumstances that the person concerned not

only reiterated genuineness of the certificates produced by him by way

of filing a petition for writ but also submitted an undertaking that in the

event of being found the certificate forged he will face all

consequences.    The respondents should have acted promptly at least

after death of Sh Dharmendra Barath and on receiving claim of the

present petitioner for pension.         The    respondents should have

understood that a claim for family pension warrants very prompt

disposal being relating to source of survival and livelihood of the wards

of a deceased government servant. If the respondents are not having

such sensitivity to understand expediency of a family pension case, this

Court is left with no option but to draw an inference that whatever

qualification was with Sh. Dharmendra Barath, that was adequate and

genuine to be appointed as Teacher Gr.III.           As said above, the

appointment given to late Sh. Barath was regular as per the Rule 25 of

the Rules of 1959, and as such, the petitioners are entitled for family
                                               5

          pension as per provisions of Rule 268-B(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

          No just and valid reason is available with the respondents to deny family

          pension and all other death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioners being

          legal heirs of late Sh. Dharmendra Barath.




                Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The petitioners are

          declared entitled to receive family pension and all other death-cum-

          retiral benefits being legal heirs of late Sh. Dharmendra Barath. The

          respondents are directed to extend the benefits as aforesaid to the

          petitioners within a period of three months from today. They are also

          required to pay the arrears accruing in favour of the petitioners within

          the period aforesaid. No order as to cost.

                                                            (GOVIND MATHUR), J.

Jgoyal’