1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Smt. Bablu Kanwar. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1403/2005. ... Date of Order: January 25, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant her family pension and other retiral benefits of her deceased husband Jagveer Singh, who expired on 28-6-1998 while in service. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that petitioner's husband Jagveer Singh was initially engaged on the post of Cattle Guard with the respondent No.2, i.e. Conservator of Forest on work-charge basis. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, deceased Jagveer Singh completed ten years of service on 31-3-1998 and thereafter 2 expired on 28-6-1998. A reply has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that the husband of the petitioner late Jagveer Singh remained absent without leave for a period of 113 days and, therefore, he has not completed ten years' service entitling him to the status of permanent employee. By the order Annx.4, the period of absence was regularized by the respondents as leave. Thus, even if the deceased employee, during his life time, remained absent for 113 days, that period came to be regularized as the leave by the respondents and, therefore, there is no break in service. Thus, taking the period from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1-4- 1988, in my view, on 31-3-1998, the deceased government servant Jagveer Singh completed ten years of service. In Mr. Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2005 Western Law Cases (Raj.) U.C. page 421, this Court held as under:- “Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 classifies work-charged employees in three categories viz. Permanent status, semi-permanent status and casual. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1964 provides that work-charged employees having 10 years of service shall be entitled to be conferred with permanent status subject to the condition that their service record stands satisfactory in opinion of the competent authority. In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, the petitioner also became entitled to be considered for grant of permanent status after completion of 10 years of service. It appears that the competent authority in spite of the fact that the petitioner completed 10 years of service did not consider his case for conferment of permanent status and as such continued him with semi-permanent status uptil his retirement after completion of more 3 than 18 years of service. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 it was obligatory for the competent authority to consider candidature of the petitioner for conferment of permanent status and should have granted permanent status if service record of the petitioner was satisfactory.” It was further held that on the petitioner therein being treated as permanent employee, he is entitled for all pensionary benefits as provided under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. This Court in Ismail Khan's case reported in 1986 RLR 24 (Raj.) held that the services rendered as work-charged employee is also to be counted for pension. This view was reiterated by this Court in Norti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1992 (1) WLC 89 (Raj.). In the instant case, from the facts stated, it has been established that the Government servant late Jagveer Singh, the husband of the petitioner, had completed 10 years of service as work-charge employee during his life-time and there is nothing on record to show that his services were not satisfactory and thus, in my view, he became eligible to pension and on his death, the petitioner is entitled for the pension and other retiral benmefits. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner under the Rules of 1964 and if any death benefit 4 in lieu of pension has been given to the petitioner then the same shall be adjusted against the pensionary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs