CWP No. 6045 of 2007 (1) /IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6045 of 2007 Date of Decision: 4.3.2008 Om Pati .....Petitioner Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner after regularising and counting the work charged service rendered by the husband of the petitioner. Late Kapoor Singh, husband of the petitioner joined as an Assistant Lineman on work charge basis on 1.5.1971. He was promoted as work-charge T-mate and later on Assistant Pump Driver. The husband of the petitioner died on 20.1.1997, but no order of regularising his service was passed. It is pointed out that in January, 1997, an option was sought from the husband of the petitioner to regularise his service, but before he could respond to such offer he died on 20.1.1997 and, therefore, it is contended CWP No. 6045 of 2007 (2) that services of the deceased-husband of the petitioner are liable to be regularised and once regularised, the petitioner is entitled to family pension. In reply, it has been pointed out that circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were issued so as to invite options for regularisation, but the petitioner's husband has not exercised option and deposited/surrendered the Employees' Provident Fund amount with interest. Therefore, the services of the husband of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be regularised. It is also pointed out that EPF amount of Rs.80,838/- has already been paid to the petitioner apart from the other dues. The question involved in the present writ petition `whether a work charged employee is entitled to family pension, even if his services have not been regularised, is not res-integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Surji Devi (Civil Appeal No. 576 of 2008 decided on 22.1.2008), has held that in terms of Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II, as applicable in the State of Haryana, no family pension is payable prior to the regularisation of service. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 04-03-2007 ds