[1] DBSAW 480/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 480/2009 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6018/1998 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR Vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR. Date: 08.02.2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. K.N. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** The appellant Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has preferred the instant special appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.05.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6018/1998, whereby while granting relief as claimed by respondent No.1 Smt. Savitri Devi, the writ petition has been disposed of with some directions. Brief facts of the case are that husband of Smt. Savitri Devi died while in service of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur on 27.04.1980. The Pension Rules for Municipal Employees in Rajasthan were framed and came into force w.e.f. 01.10.1987. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said Rules were framed much after the death of the husband of respondent/petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi and, therefore, the respondent [2] DBSAW 480/2009 No.1 is not entitled for pension or family pension but is only entitled for P.F. and Gratuity. The respondent/petitioner filed the writ petition for non-payment of the retiral benefits, wherein it was contended by the respondent/petitioner that the concerned Executive Engineer of appellant/respondent Municipal Council, Jaipur has given a certificate that the husband of the respondent/petitioner had worked for 23 years as Skilled Mason in the Municipal Council, Jaipur. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur did not opt to file reply to the writ petition despite of ample opportunities provided to the Municipal Corporation. The learned Single Judge having considered the hardship of the respondent/petitioner and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.05.2006 with the following directions:- “Having considered entire facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to make the entire payment due to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also pay interest @ 10% per annum on the entire amount from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner till the payment is made. The respondents shall also pay a cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner along with arrears as ordered above. The petitioner is a poor lady, now about 62 years of old. The respondent No.2 is directed to depute a responsible officer to get [3] DBSAW 480/2009 all the formalities done at the residence of the petitioner.” The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant Municipal Corporation that the respondent/petitioner's husband worked for more than 23 years and the retiral benefits have not been extended in her favour. As the respondent/petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi is now more than 65 years old lady and pressing hard for family pension along with other retiral benefits, therefore, looking to the hardship of the respondent/petitioner, the learned Single Judge has rightly issued directions to release the retiral benefits with interest @ 10% per annum along with Rs.30,000/- as cost to the respondent/petitioner. The appellant/respondent is not able to make out any case which requires any interference by this Court in the impugned order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order. Consequently, the special appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/