1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5065/2006 (Smt. Bhanwari Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 13.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. K.R. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Arjun Singh, Dy. Govt. Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner being widow of late Bhanwara Ram is claiming family pension on the ground that petitioner's husband late Bhanwara Ram was employee of respondent Department and was working on the post of chowkidar vide order dated 27.12.1984 and he was given semi permanent status and he died while in employment on 25.3.1991. After his death, although the petitioner was provided appointment on compassionate ground but petitioner is claiming family pension on the ground that the petitioner's husband has completed 10 years of service, therefore, as per Rule 22 (a) of the Work-charge Rules, she is very much 2 entitled for pensionary benefits. According to petitioner, the husband of petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and he died in the year 1991, therefore, obviously he had completed ten years of service, hence he is entitled for pensionary benefits, which is not paid to the petitioner after death of her husband. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that husband of the petitioner was made semi permanent w.e.f. 27.12.1984 in the year 1987 and he died in the year 1991, therefore, he had not completed ten years of service. More so as per Rule 22 (a) of the Work-charge Rules, he was not entitled for pensionary benefits. To ascertain the correct position, entire service record of late Bhanwara Ram and service book was called in the Court. Upon perusal of service book, the first entry is shown as semi permanent employee w.e.f. 27.12.1984. In my opinion, as per Rule 3 (3) of the Work-charge Rules, there is provision for declaring a casual employee semi permanent after completion of two years of service. Obviously, the petitioner's husband was declared semi permanent on 27.12.1984, then, the fact is that he had completed two years of service on that date and if the said period of two years is calculated for the purpose of reckoning total service prior to 27.12.1984, it does not come to ten years, therefore, the 3 petitioner's case for grant of family pension cannot be considered because the pre condition for grant of pensionary benefits to work-charge employee that he has completed ten years of service, is not in existence in this case. Therefore, in my opinion, no case for grant of family pension is made out. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun