V.K. Bali, J.—Controversy herein is in very narrow compass. Whereas, case of the petitioner, who is widow of Surinder Kumar, a Government employee, is that she is entitled to family pension on account of demise of her husband, even though he was a temporary employee, case of the respondent State is that Surinder Kumar had served for a period from 14.7.1995 to 1.10.1997 and that too on ad hoc/purely temporary basis.

2. Concededly, the scheme with regard to family pension, which governs the filed, runs thus :-

"4. This scheme is administered as below :-

(i) The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the Ist July, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. The family pension will be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without any break.

Note :- The term one year continuous service used in para 4(i) above is inclusive of permanent/temporary service in a pensionable establishment but does not include periods of extra ordinary leave, boy service and suspension period unless that is regularised by the competent authority or before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government employee concerned immediately prior to his recruitment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit by the authority for the Government service."

3. From the perusal of relevant para of scheme, reproduced above, it is clear that even if a Government employee had one years service to his credit, irrespective of the fact whether he was permanent or temporary, his widow would be entitled to family pension. The appointment letter, Annexure P-2, regarding which there is no dispute, would manifest that the husband of petitioner was employed on temporary basis. Much emphasis has been laid on the language employed in appointment letter, Annexure P-2 that it was an appointment on temporary basis and it could be terminated by any party without any notice or reason as also that condition 4 of the appointment letter provided that the appointment was for academic session or till a candidate from S.S.S. Board was made available, whichever was earlier. This Court is of the firm view that the language employed in the appointment letter, Annexure P-2, relied upon by Mr. Nitin Kumar, learned DAG, Haryana, cannot come in the way of petitioner in getting family pension. It is because of the language employed in the appointment letter, reference whereof has been made above, that the petitioner was temporary employee, otherwise, he would have been a permanent employee. As mentioned above, family pension scheme is applicable to widow of a temporary employee as well. The only ground taken by the State counsel in opposing the claim of the petitioner is, thus, repelled. Consequently, his petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent to work out the family pension payable to the petitioner under the rules and make over the same to her within six weeks from today.

4. Disposed of accordingly.