IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4346/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Joban Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Kuldeep Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner claims that her husband was engaged as Compounder in the year 1938-39 in the erstwhile State of Rampur Bushahr. Thereafter his services were taken over by the State and after the constitution of Territorial Council in the year 1957, he became employee of the Territorial Council. He was offered appointment to the post of Dental Mechanic in Medical and Public Health Department of the Himachal Pradesh Territorial Council on 31.5.1960. He joined his duties. Thereafter he kept on working in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Civil Hospital, Rampur Bushahr. His son died on 4.6.1966. He proceeded on leave. Petitioner’s husband died in the year 1996. Central Government has taken a decision to grant family pension to the families or the Government employees, who retired or died before 1.1.1964 or otherwise not covered by the family pension scheme of 1964. Petitioner’s husband made representation to the Director of Health Services on 3.12.1992. He received communication vide letter dated 24.3.1993. He filed reply to the same on 20.4.1993. Petitioner is also relying upon the affidavit sworn in by Gopi Chand (Annexure A-7). A letter was addressed by respondent No.2 to Chief Medical Officer, Shimla on 14.9.1993 (Annexure A-8). Text of letter dated 14.9.1993 reads thus: “Sub: Regarding Pension case of Shri Amar Singh (Dental Mechanic) Sir, With reference to your letter No. 11493 dated 29.7.1993 regarding the above stated subject I have to submit that it is clear from the pension papers sent by you that Shri Amar Singh was given appointment as Dental Mechanic by then Chief Executive Office, Territorial Council vide letter No. M-5- 1(37)/58 dated 31.5.1960. Further it is also clear from the letter of Shri Amar Singh dated 20.4.1993 that he had left the job of his own hence Shri Amar Singh cannot be granted any retirement pension in any manner.” Petitioner’s husband also made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court on 11.9.1993 for the redressal of his grievances. He approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 332/1995, which was 3 directed to be treated as representation to the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 19.2.1995. He rejected the same on 10.9.1996. Mr. R.S. Gautam has strenuously argued that the petitioner is entitled to family pension in view of Annexure A-3 and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Kuldeep Rathore have strenuously argued that petitioner has not placed any material on record to prove that petitioner’s husband was working since 1938-39 till 1960 as Compounder/ Dental Mechanic. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Petitioner has not placed any tangible evidence on record to establish that her husband was appointed as Compounder in the erstwhile State of Rampur Bushahr in the year 1938-39. As per the material available on record, petitioner’s husband was offered post of Dental Mechanic in Medical and Public Health Department only on 31.5.1960. He joined his duties. His son fell sick and subsequently died on 4.6.1966. It is averred in the petition that petitioner’s husband applied for leave. However, the petitioner has not placed any application on record. The Senior Accounts Officer has already informed the Chief Medical Officer on 14.9.1993 that the petitioner’s husband was appointed in the Territorial Council vide letter dated 31.5.1960 and as per letter written by her husband on 20.4.1993 (Annexure A-7), he had left the job of his own 4 somewhere in the year 1966. In view of this, petitioner’s husband has only worked for a period of about six years. His case was not covered under the rules for the release of pension and the same was rightly rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Health) on 10.9.1996. Mr. R.S. Gautam has also argued that there is nothing to suggest that petitioner’s husband was retired. The retirement is automatic after attaining the age of superannuation. No separate letter was required to be issued. In the instant case, petitioner’s husband had relinquished the job somewhere in the year 1966. He made the first representation only on 3.12.1993 after a lapse of about 27 years. This inordinate delay has not been explained. The principle of delay and laches ordinarily does not apply as far as claim to pension/family pension is concerned. However, still the matters are required to be filed at the earliest. There is always possibility, as is in the instant case, of record being not available with the passage of time. The fact of the matter is that petitioner was not in a position to prove that her husband has worked in the State of Himachal Pradesh before 1960 either as Compounder or Dental Mechanic. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*