C.W.P. No. 20988 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20988 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Banarsi Devi ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, and Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 19351 of 2009 CM allowed. Replication is taken on record. CWP No. 20988 of 2008 The petitioner, widow of Sh. Kalu Ram an employee of the respondents, seeks invalid pension on account of cent per cent disability suffered by her late husband while performing his official duties. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Lineman with the Haryana State Electricity Board, and he met with a non-fatal accident on 14.7.1982. On account of the accident, he suffered cent per cent disability. On 17.6.1986, the husband of the petitioner applied for grant of invalid pension according to the Government instructions. His case was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Operations Division DHBVN, C.W.P. No. 20988 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Mohindergarh, District Mohindergarh. Certain objections were raised, which were removed by the husband of the petitioner on 20.8.1986. Husband of the petitioner died on 19.3.1991. Thereafter, in spite of number of representations, no action was taken for grant of invalid pension to the petitioner, which has forced her to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The claim was contested on the plea that the late husband of the petitioner was not entitled to pension, as he had not completed the requisite pensionary service of 10 years. The plea of the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Lalli Devi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and others, CWP No. 13530 of 2007 decided on 31.3.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to lay down as under: - “The reason of non-payment of invalid pension can be easily found out from the order dated 25.01.1993 wherein on account of typing mistake the word “valid pension” was typed instead of “invalid pension”. The petitioner has been retired on the basis of medical ground and in terms of Rule 5.11 of Civil Service Rules, the deceased-husband of the petitioner was entitled to invalid pension under Rule 5.11, which reads as under: “5.11. An invalid pension is awarded, on his retirement from the public service, to a govt. employee who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service, or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs.” Such Rule does not contemplate any minimum period of C.W.P. No. 20988 of 2008 (O&M) -3- qualifying service. The deceased-husband of the petitioner has received injury during the course of employment and thus, it was rightly decided to grant invalid pension but it appears on account of typing mistake in the order dated 25.01.1993 such invalid pension has been withheld and not paid to the deceased-husband of the petitioner. In view of the said fact, the stand of the respondents in the written statement that pension was not given for the reason that deceased-husband of the petitioner has less than 10 years of qualifying service is not tenable. In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to release the invalid pension under Rule 5.11 of Civil Service Rules from 05.06.1992 till 04.01.2007 and release the family pension to the petitioner in terms of Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Needful be done within a period of 2 months from today.” The case of the petitioner being squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Lalli Devi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and others (supra), the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to release the invalid pension under Rule 5.11 of the Civil Services Rules from 18.7.1985 to 19.3.1991 as thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to release of family pension in terms of Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The amount due to her be released within two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge November 30, 2009 R.S.