Chhawani Ramchandrapura, Kota v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Department Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Director, Local Bodies Rajasthan, Jaipur. Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota

3. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh for Mr. G.S Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 04/07/2025

1. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

2. In the prayer of the writ petition, petitioner has made a prayer for grant of compassionate appointment as also for payment of family pension, but during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayer only in respect of non-grant of family pension by the respondents. As far as prayer for grant of compassionate appointment is concerned, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

3. In respect of claim for family pension, petitioner has come up with a case that her husband Sanjay (now deceased), was given appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari on compassionate ground vide order dated 27.10.1999, pursuant to [2025:RJ-JP:24776] (2 of 7) [CW-18116/2019] which he joined services in the office of Nagar Nigam, Kota. Her husband Sanjay passed away while in service on 07.01.2010 and thus, has rendered services from 27.10.1999 to 07.01.2010, it means for a period of more than ten years. Since petitioner is a legally wedded wife of deceased- employee Sanjay, hence, entitled to receive the family pension as per Rule 61 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short “Rules of 1996”).

4. On behalf of respondents, counsel repudiates claim of the petitioner for family pension on the ground that appointment of her husband Sanjay was an irregular appointment since at the time of obtaining the appointment on compassionate ground, his elder brother Gordhan was already rendering services in Nagar Nigam.

5. In support of such contention, counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to an enquiry report dated

18.11.2022 (Annexure-R/26), allegedly conducted by an Enquiry Committee pursuant to the interim order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. On making a query from counsel for the respondents, he admits that order of compassionate appointment dated

27.10.1999, issued in favour of deceased Sanjay, has never been cancelled/recalled by Nagar Nigam, Kota, and does not dispute that deceased Sanjay, pursuant to such appointment order, rendered services from the date of joining till date of his death.

7. Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the enquiry report dated 18.11.2022, which has allegedly been made after death of deceased, cannot be considered as an enquiry under the eye of law. He has relied upon Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, [2025:RJ-JP:24776] (3 of 7) [CW-18116/2019] 1958 stating that neither the alleged enquiry has been conducted, in accordance with the procedures prescribed under such Rules, nor the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before conducting such enquiry, was extended rather the enquiry was made after death of the deceased employee,3 which is per-se illegal and non- est.

8. As far as interim order dated 12.10.2022, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submits that this order was passed merely for ensuring the presence of CEO of Nagar Nigam, Kota, albeit to show reasons for non-grant of family pension to the petitioner. No specific order to conduct any de novo enquiry, in respect of alleged irregular appointment of deceased employee on compassionate ground, was passed.

9. Heard. Considered.

10. At the outset, interim order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench is being reproduced hereunder:- “Counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks’ time to complete his instructions with regard to payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. Time prayed for is allowed. List on 16.11.2022. It is made clear that if pension and other retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioner before the next date of hearing, then, the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to why pension and other retiral benefits has not paid by them as yet. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota.”

11. Perusal of the order dated 12.10.2022 makes it clear that Coordinate Bench of this Court has never issued any direction to [2025:RJ-JP:24776] (4 of 7) [CW-18116/2019] the respondents to conduct any departmental enquiry in respect of regular/irregular appointment of deceased employee-Sanjay.

12. Indisputably, it has come on record that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay, was given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 27.10.1999 and in pursuance thereof, he rendered services as Safai Karmchari in the office of Nagar Nigam, Kota until his death, which occurred on

07.01.2010.

13. It is noteworthy that appointment order passed in favour of deceased employee Sanjay was never recalled/cancelled by the respondents during his lifetime or even thereafter till date. The only plea of respondents is that the appointment of deceased Sanjay on compassionate appointment suffers from some irregularity which too is based on the suo-moto inquiry, conducted by the respondent post to the death of the employee.

14. It is further noteworthy that in respect of alleged irregular appointment of deceased Sanjay, no notice was ever issued to deceased Sanjay nor any enquiry was conducted during his lifetime. The enquiry report dated 18.11.2022 has been conducted by the respondents, only after death of deceased employee Sanjay which is per se illegal. It has been laid down by High Court of Allahabad in case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. State of UP and Ors. [2011 (2) ADJ 643] wherein it has been held that as soon as the employee dies, the employer-employee relationship comes to an end and no enquiry can be initiated against a deceased employee, such ratio of law has also been reiterated by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Priyanka Rahul Dhawas v. Cotton [2025:RJ-JP:24776] (5 of 7) [CW-18116/2019] Corporation of India in W.P. No.17214/2017, decided on

05.02.2025. This Court does not find any order of High Court to direct the respondents to hold any enquiry. The perusal of the enquiry report nowhere evince that even a notice to petitioner (wife of deceased Sanjay) was given, prior to enquiry. Such an enquiry, obviously cannot be termed as a lawful enquiry as envisaged under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and cannot be relied upon by the Court rather deserves to be declared as non-est, hence, the reliance placed by counsel for the respondents on the enquiry report dated

18.11.2022 is misplaced and on the plea of alleged irregular compassionate appointment of deceased, the petitioner cannot be denied her legal right of family pension.

15. At this juncture, this Court deems it just and proper to record oft-quoted and a celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Mastan Bee Vs. G.M., South Central Railway [2003 (1) SCC 184], wherein, denial of family pension by the High Court to an illiterate widow of a Gangman in the Railways for certain period on the ground of delay in approaching the Court, was not approved by the Supreme Court. The relevant passage of the said decision is reproduced hereunder: "6. We notice that the appellants husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension and to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husbands employer viz. The Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is an [2025:RJ-JP:24776] (6 of 7) [CW-18116/2019] erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellants lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. The question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, was the Appellate Bench justified in restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of the appellants husband on which date she had legally become entitled to the grant of pension? In this case as noticed by us hereinabove, the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of delay put forth by the Railways and taking note of the appellants right to pension and the denial of the same by the Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect from the date on which it became due to her. The Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned Single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for the grant of family pension was not fatal, in spite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from a date on which the appellant issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 1-4-1992. We think on the facts of this case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact that her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1-4-1992.

7. In the said view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench to the extent that it restricts the right of the appellant to receive family pension only from 1-4-1992 and restore that right of the appellant as conferred on her by the learned Single Judge, that is from the date 21-11-1969. The Railways will take steps forthwith to compute the arrears of pension payable to the appellant w.e.f. 21-11-1969 and pay the entire arrears within three months from the date of the receipt of this order and continue to pay her future pension."

16. Indisputably, the petitioner happens to be wife of the deceased Sanjay. There is no dispute about the applicability of Pension Rules, 1996 in Nagar Nigam, Kota, hence, the case of the [2025:RJ-JP:24776] (7 of 7) [CW-18116/2019] petitioner for claim of family pension is governed under such Rules of 1996. As per Rules 60, 61 & 62, petitioner being a wife of deceased employee- Sanjay is entitled for family pension. Thus, non-grant of family pension to petitioner is infringement/violation of her legal right vested by virtue of law. It is trite law that grant of family pension is a matter of legal right as has been expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Poonamal v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 345], wherein it was held that pension is a right and not a bounty or gratuitous payment and anyone entitled to the pension under the relevant rules can claim it as a matter of right. Hence, the respondents are under legal obligation and duty- bound to pay the family pension to the petitioner.

17. As a result, the present writ petition stands succeed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the family pension to petitioner as permissible under the Pension Rules,

1996. If any amount of gratuity, GPF, state insurance and other emoluments etc. are payable to the deceased employee, same may also be paid to the petitioner. If the arrears of pension and the due emoluments for services of deceased are not paid within a period of 60 days from today, same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the Family Pension Rules, 1996. No costs.

18. Stay application or pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sunil Solanki/TN/235 (SUDESH BANSAL),J