By reason of the impugned order dated 15.12.1998, the said Special Appeal has been dismissed, inter alia, on the premise that the appellant had approached the High Court after 14 years of her husbands death and since all the dues admissible to the appellants husband were duly settled during his life time and the widow of the deceased appellant herein received all the dues including gratuity and, thus, the question of her entitlement to family pension does number arise.
The said companytention was 3 repelled stating I am number impressed with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the widows of the work charged employees died after September1, 1982 were only entitled to opt for pension.
Appellant after 14 years of her husbands death claimed family pension of her husband under Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works Department BR including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 for short the Rules which came into force with effect from 17.09.1980.
Appellants husband, who was working as work charge employee in the Public Works Department in the year 1958 and companyfirmed on the said post vide order dated 22.8.1972 with effect from 31.3.1970, died in the year 1978.
Chawla Pushap Lata Bhardwaj Court Master Court Master Reportable Signed Order is placed on the File REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7556 7557 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C Nos.21083 21084 of 2005 Panchi Devi Appellant versus State of Rajasthan Others Respondents ORDER Leave granted.
Since, numberorder was passed on her representation, she filed a writ petition bearing No.
I do number find any difference between two widows to work charged employees, one who died prior to September 1, 1982 and another who died after the said date.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.
The said review application has also been dismissed on the premise that the application for companydonation of delay in filing the review petition has been dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a review petition No.43 of 2004 along with an application for companydonation of delay.
Appellant thereafter filed a Special Appeal bearing 2 No.
6890 of 1992 before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
295 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Parveen Kr.
