CWP 210/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.210/2007 Smt. Laxmi Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 11/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl.Govt. Advocate for respondent State Mr. Kapil Sharma for Mr. SK Gupta, for respondent Municipality Instant petition has been filed by widow of Shri Hanuman who died on 08/11/82 while serving as Safai Karamchari and she has claimed family pension. Husband of petitioner was initially appointed as Safai Karamchari on 03/05/67 and at that time, Municipal Board Beawar was under Ajmer Merwara State and after Municipal Board being established, Rajasthan Municipalities (Provident Fund & Gratuity) Rules, 1969 duly amended & termed as Rules, 1970 came into force and whereby options were called from its employees to furnish and since her husband was a member of provident fund scheme, after his death, payment of provident fund was made. However, it has come on record that provident fund amount received of total sum of Rs.4,323.75p., was deposited and taking note whereof, he was considered for grant of pension as is evident from order dt.06/06/88 (Ex.1). But CWP 210/07 //2// the fact is that sanction order was passed by respondent for release of family pension U/r 268 of Rajasthan Service Rules while actual payment was never made to her – against which she made representations to the authorities but later on vide letter dt.15/06/93 (Ex.5) after adjustment of provident fund refund by petitioner, orders were made of recovery of Rs.14,100/- which has been assailed herein. Counsel for petitioner submits that the issue raised herein was earlier decided by this Court in Rajasthan Nagar Palika Sewa Nivrit Karamchari Sangh Vs. State (CWP-288/1989 decided vide judgment dt.26/02/91 (1991(2) WLN 567) finally holding that no distinction can be made amongst retired personnel and members of the association were also entitled to same pensionary benefits as was being given to erstwhile members of the Municipality. As informed, certain other petitions alike nature were decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4026/1993 & two cognate matters vide order dt.12/08/2004, directing respondents after making adjustment of provident fund duly paid, to release family pension in their favour and arrears be also paid to them. Counsel for respondents submits that CWP 210/07 //3// there is inordinate delay of 14 years in filing instant petition as the order impugned was passed on 15/06/93 (Ex.5), which has not been explained, that dis-entitles for relief as prayed for herein. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Shiv Das Vs. Union of India (2001 Supreme 455). A reference has been made of earlier CWP- 3650/97 wherein compassionate appointment was claimed despite opportunity no claim for grant of family pension was raised at that point of time; as such she cannot now be permitted to challenge and raise any grievance. As regards issue raised herein, that was decided by this Court way back in Rajasthan Nagar Palika Sewa Nivrit Karamchari Sangh Vs. State (supra) wherein this Court observed ad infra: “14. The result is that this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26/05/84 published in the Gazette on 17/09/87 denying the members of the petitioner association the pensionary benefits and the order dated 09/09/88 is declared to be discriminatory qua the members of the petitioner association and it is directed that they will be entitled to the same pensionary benefits as has been given to the erstwhile employees, who were members of the Municipal Services in Ajmer Merwara. It CWP 210/07 //4// is further directed that the contribution of the provident fund amount paid to the members of the petitioner association shall be adjusted towards the arrears of the total amount of pension to which they are found entitled from the date of entitlement. They shall also be entitled to be paid pension in future month by month in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules with the benefit of commutation of pension etc. including all facilities which are being provided to the persons placed in similar situation.” Thereafter writ petitions were also filed since relief was not granted to petitioner-widows for claiming family pension and which were decided vide order dt.12/08/2004 in Laxmi Vs. State (supra) – against which Spl Appeal (Writ)-39/05 was preferred, that too was dismissed vide order dt.26/07/05. Even in instant case, family pension was sanctioned vide order dt.06/06/88 (Ex.1) but actual payment in terms whereof was not released by respondents. Once issue was decided by this Court, respondents were under obligation to maintain parity and should have granted such benefits to all other similarly situated persons; but still petitioner approached this Court seeking same CWP 210/07 //5// relief which was already adjudicated and decided way back in 1991. From material on record, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner too is entitled for same relief, and denial whereof is in violation of Art.14 of Constitution of India. It is relevant to observe that grant of pension/family pension once adjudicated, relief should have been granted to other similarly situated persons, no justification has come forward from the side of respondents as to why petitioner was not granted same benefit despite the fact that sanction order (Ex.1) was also passed way back on 06/06/88. In the opinion of this Court, denial of family pension to petitioner & such action of respondents is arbitrary. As regards delay in filing instant petition, it is always to be looked into on the facts of each case and in instant case, once there was an order of sanction granting family pension way back being passed on 06/06/88 (Ex.1) and judgment of this Court (supra), one can bonafidely believe that similar treatment will be met out and that apart, delay in such matters is otherwise not fatal where third parity's right is not created in intervening period and in such circumstances, delay if any cannot be considered CWP 210/07 //6// to deny rightful claim of the petitioner; and in view whereof, judgment cited by Counsel for respondents is of no assistance in the facts of instant case. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to release family pension in terms of sanctioned order dt.06/06/88 (Ex.1) and arrears be computed and paid to the petitioner in compliance of aforesaid direction within two months. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/210CW07-1109Pns.doc