The petitioner's husband joined service as a work charged Beldar in the Highway Department, Government of the Punjab, on 1.1.1953. He continued to work in the said status until his confirmation as a regular employee on 1.6.1972. The petitioner's husband thereafter served without break until 30.9.1979 when he was incapacitated by paralysis, could not attend his duties and died on 8.8.1980.
After her husband's death, the petitioner applied for grant of pensionery benefits but no action thereon was taken by the respondent authorities. In this petition she has prayed for a direction to be issued to respondents to process her application and to grant her a family pension in accordance with law.
2. Making reference to the parawise comments, the learned AAG has pointed out that the petitioner's husband was admittedly absent from duty without explanation from 1.10.1979 until his death on 8.8.1980. Due to the lack of justifiable cause for his absence from duty, the petitioner's husband is not entitled under the law to receive pension.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the petitioner's husband did not attend duty for 10 months or so until his death because he was paralyzed. The break in service of the petitioner's husband is attributable to a valid cause and is therefore justified.
He states that for purpose of pensionary benefits, such a break in service is otherwise adjustable against 350 days of accumulated leave entitlement of the petitioner's husband which is duly verified by his departmental authority in his service book. Under Rule 2.7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules 1963 ("Rules") this period of leave can count as qualifying service for eligibility to pension. He adds that under Rule 2.12 of the Rules, the respondent administrative department also has power to condone the deficiency in service period up to one year for grant of, pensionary rights to a retired government servant.
4. The respondents' parawise comments admit the accumulated leave entitlement of the petitioner's husband to the extent of 350 days which is duly verified by his departmental authority.
No reason however is given by the respondents to deny the benefit of sub-rule 2.7 ibid to the petitioner's case. This is damaging to the respondents' stand. It is further noted that as the absence from duty of the petitioner's husband was for a period of less than one year, that also makes him eligible for condonation under rule 2.12 of the Rules. Such relief may be attracted in the present case because during the said period or thereafter the respondent-department did not initiate any A departmental action against the petitioner's husband for his absence from duty. Such inaction by the departmental authority indicates that some sort of explanation by or on behalf of petitioner's deceased husband had been rendered to his superiors so that no proceedings were commenced against him. In any event, his death following his indisposition due to paralysis is a fact that is not denied by the respondents and cannot be ignored as a verifiable explanation of his absence from duty. Accordingly, such a cause is both valid and sufficient to justify the absence of the petitioner's husband from duty for, 10 months.
5. Pensionary benefits of a government servant constitute a valuable term of service which in the present case is admittedly available to the petitioner's husband but for his unexplained absence for the period of 10 months prior to his death. The petitioner's husband died twenty-six years ago.
His death was reported to the respondents who made entries on 20.8.1984 in his service book to verify his service upto 30.9.1979 for payment of bills. Thereafter the petitioner has been deprived of her right to receive a family pension till date by inaction and verbal refusals of the respondents. In the first instance, the written comments by the respondents rejected the eligibility of the petitioner's husband under the Rules to receive pension because he was not a regular employee for more than 10 years. However, during the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AAG clarified that by notification the said condition of entitlement did not apply to employees having 20 years of work charged service, which is the case with the petitioner's husband.
6. Thereupon the respondents reluctantly accepted the entitlement of the petitioner's husband to the aforementioned pensionary benefits but have presently raised the issue of break in his service.
Prima-facie this is a matter where relief could be given by respondents by adjusting accumulated leave entitlement against the break in service or by exercising their power of condonation. Rather than doing either, the respondent departmental authority has denied the vesting of such powers to him.
7. The Court cannot ignore the mind set of the respondents to deprive the petitioner of her lawful entitlement to a family pension; firstly, by verbal refusals that did not disclose any grounds, then by reliance on irrelevant grounds in the parawise comments and finally now by a denial of the availability of the power of adjustment and or condonation under the Rules. Such resistance reflects arbitraries and prejudice in the discharge of public duty.
8. The Court finds sufficient material in this case as already noticed above, including the beneficial terms of the Pension Rules, to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner, as the widow of a deceased government servant, her entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with law.
Accordingly, it is further directed that the case of the petitioner's deceased husband for grant of pensionary benefits shall by processed expeditiously in accordance with law for the payment of the rightful pension and other dues to the petitioner within two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Respondent No, 1 shall ensure compliance and shall report the same to the D.R. (Judicial) of this Court. Petition allowed in the above terms.