Dependent Can't Be Denied Family Pension Merely Because Employee's Appointment Letter Said "Purely Temporary Basis": Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief in a petition seeking family pension and other post-retirement benefits, filed after 24 years of the death of the petitioner's husband, opining that the question of limitation or delay could not be raised by the State to deny legitimate benefits to a government servant or his/her dependents.
Further, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that in case the procedure adopted to appoint the concerned government servant was similar to that of a substantive employee, benefits could not be denied to him/her or family, on the ground that the appointment letter mentioned “purely on temporary basis”.
The petition was filed by the wife of a late government employee, who was appointed as a Lower division clerk in 1989 following a regular appointment process, even though his appointment letter mentioned “purely on temporary basis”. He died after rendering one year of service in 1990.
Based on the phrase being used in his appointment letter, no benefits were extended to his family. Hence, the petition was filed in 2014.
It was the case of the petitioner that after her husband's death, she was granted compassionate appointment which also revealed that the husband was being treated as substantively appointed.
On the contrary, the State argued that the petition being filed after so much delay, suffered from the vice of delay and latches, and thus could not be entertained. Further, it was argued that since the husband was appointed on a purely temporary basis, as reflected in his appointment letter, family pension could not be granted.
After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected both the arguments put forth by the State and held that, “process adopted for his appointment was similar to the process of appointment of substantive employee. Therefore, benefits, which are otherwise admissible to substantive employees, cannot be denied to the dependents of the deceased Government servant only for the reason that term, 'purely on temporary basis' has been used in the appointment letter…”.
The Court further made a reference to Rule 268A of the then prevailing Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 that provided that dependents of government employees were entitled to family pension, irrespective of the employee being appointed on a temporary or permanent basis.
In relation to the argument of the petition being filed belatedly, the Court opined that it was settled that pension was not a bounty but a right, which could not be denied by the State on account of question of limitation or delay.
In this background, the petition was allowed, and the State was directed to release all the benefits to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% since the delay in release of family pension was solely on account of the unjustified reasons of the State.
Title: Smt. Mishri Devi v Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department Pension Bhawan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 324