1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 962/2007 KOSHALYA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 04.09.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. G.J. Gupta for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. By this petition for writ, the petitioner is claiming family pension being widow of Shri Banarsi Das, who said to be died on 26.12.1957, while holding the post of Assistant Teacher at Government High School, Karanpur. It is stated that on death of Shri Banarsi Das, a sum of Rs.1,472/- was paid to the petitioner against State Insurance, however, no payment of family pension is made. Though no representative of the respondents is present, however, as per the averments contained in reply to the writ petition, the appointment order and other service record relating to late Shri Banarsi Das was not traceable and some documents were produced before the departmental authorities by Koshaliya Devi. It is also stated that the school concerned was acquired by Army during Indo-Pak War in the year 1965 and 1971 and at that time, record concerned was lost and as such necessary documents regarding late Shri Banarsi Das are not available. A doubt is also created by the respondents regarding genuineness of the present petitioner by stating that “on 26.1.1957, payment 2 of was made to Smt. Koshalya Devi, but whether said Koshalya Devi is present petitioner or not is not clear as in the cash-book the address and full particulars of Koshalya Devi are not disclosed.” By submitting an additional affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated that she received a sum of Rs.1,472/- from the State Insurance Department in the year 1957. She has also placed on record, certain affidavits of her relatives to substantiate the fact that she is widow of Banarsi Das. The facts averred in the additional affidavit have not been rebutted by the respondents. In view of it, I do not find any reason to disbelieve that the petitioner is not widow of late Shri Banarsi Das. As stated in preceding para, none is present on behalf of the respondents to contest the matter. The only stand taken in reply is that the record relating to the services given by late Shri Banarsi Das is not available and, therefore, no pension could be extended. The respondents are custodian of the record and if the same is lost by them, then the petitioner cannot be deprived of her rights. It was responsibility of the respondents to keep the entire record safely and to allow rightful claims of their employees. True it is, the employer in absence of record are not in position to determine the quantum of pension, but this Court have to settle equities, as per existing circumstances and on basis of the facts available. The petitioner is an old lady and is waiting for pension against the services rendered by her husband. The State could not have denied for social security to the petitioner for its fault and for which the petitioner is not 3 responsible. May the record would have not been available with the respondents, but at least the State could have given minimum pension to the petitioner being widow of late Shri Banarsi Das, thus, the respondents are directed to allow at least minimum statutory pension to the petitioner from the date she preferred this petition for writ before this Court i.e. 03.09.2006. With the directions above, the writ petition is disposed of. The cost of litigation is determined as Rs.5000/-, which is also required to be paid to the petitioner. Respondents are required to make compliance of this order within a period of two months from the date they receive a certified copy of this order. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/