M.M. Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner who is a widow of an ex-employee of the respondents has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing Order 21.4.2006 (P-5) declining her claim for grant of family pension. It has further been that direction be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of pension and all consequential benefits.

2. The undisputed facts are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher with effect from 14.10.1968. His services were regularised with effect from 1.4.1979. After about six months he unfortunately died on 19.10.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was given exgratia appointment on the post of Peon and she is working as water carrier at Government High School, Bainsi, District Rohtak. No family pension has been granted to the petitioner. It is claimed that in the year 1983-84 she had given papers to some advocate for filing family pension case but the same was not filed. On 30.5.2005, a legal notice was sent (P-2) followed by C.W.P. No. 11340 of 2005 in this Court seeking direction for grant of family pension. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice by treating the same as a representation within a period of four months. It is appropriate to mention here that learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that if she succeeds. she would claim only arrears of 38 months from the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner also filed contempt petition bearing C.O. C.P. No. 1481 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order 31.10.2006 as the respondents have passed an order dated 21.4.2006 in the meanwhile rejecting her claim which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Her claim has been rejected primarily on the ground that prior to regularisation of his service on 1.4.1979. the husband of the petitioner was working on six months basis and he expired on 19.10.1979. It is therefore pleaded that this service is not reckoned for family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.

3. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, which has come into force 1.7.1964 for the grant of family pension to her. The aforementioned Scheme is claimed to be applicable to all employees on pensionable establishments, temporary or permanent, who were in service on 1.7.1964 or were recruited thereafter. She has placed firm reliance on Clauses 3 and 4 of the Scheme to contend that the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 (P-5) is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rati Ram v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 4857 of 1994 decided on 24.5.1995) and Om Pati v. State of Haryana, 2007(1) RSJ 582 : [2007(2) SLR 289 (Pb. & Hry.)].

4. The respondent State has taken a totally untenable stand. It has been asserted in the written statement that the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner was only six months under the Government on regular basis which would not by sufficient to entitle his dependent widow like the petitioner to claim family pension. The respondents have also raised a frivolous objection that disputed question of facts have been raised and the petitioner has no locus standi and valid cause of action to file the extant petition. It has further been claimed that the petitioner could have claimed family pension only if the deceased had rendered minimum one year continuous service in a Government department. Learned State counsel has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Rati Rams case and Om Patis case(supra) by arguing that the judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is not entitled to grant of family pension.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is hardly any room for the respondents to take the stand that the earlier service rendered by the husband of the petitioner prior to 1.4.1979 was not qualifying service for the grant of family pension. The question of counting to aforementioned service and qualifying service is no longer res integra and this Court by taking into consideration the circular dated 22.11.1991 has already opined in favour of the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in Rati Rams case (supra) has categorically held as under :

"Circular Annexure P-4 shows that Government had taken a decision to count the service rendered by the employees with the District Board, Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samities towards pension etc. from their date of appointment in these bodies. This circular does not require that a person must have remained posted. with Panchayat Samiti through the period of his service. Therefore, if in a case like that of the petitioner the employee was posted in a Gram Panchayat while holding appointment under the Panchayat Samiti, benefit of total service cannot be denied for the person etc. In taking a contrary view the respondents have committed a patent illegality. Narrow interpretation sought to by placed on the circular dated 22.11.1991 is not at all justified because such an interpretation would lead to anomalous results. Out of the two employees appointed in the service of the Panchayat Samiti one may be given benefit of total service for the purpose of pension because he may have physically served the Panchayat Samiti and the other will be deprived of that benefit only on the ground that he was asked to serve some other body like the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion there is no justification to adopt such a narrow interpretation of the circular dated 22.11.1991."

The Division Bench further opined after referring to the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court that in any case the service rendered by an employee under the Panchayat Act would constitute civil service and went on to observe as under :

"We may also refer to decisions of the Supreme Court. In Mathuradas Mohan Lal Kadia and others v. S.D. Munshaw and others, AIR 1984 SC 53 : [1983(1981)(1) SLR 581 (SC)] their Lordships of the Supreme Court declared that the employees of the Panchyat constituted under the Panchayat Act held civil posts and the service under the Panchayat Act is civil service. This decision was rendered by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. But as is apparent from perusal of the subsequent judgment in State of Gujarat and another v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others, AIR 1984 SC 161 [LQ/SC/1983/33] : [1983(1) SLR 581 (SC)], the aforesaid judgment in Mathuradass case (supra) was set aside on an application tiled by the State of Gujarat. In Raman Lals case (supra) another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined the matter and held that members of the Gujarat Panchayat Service are Government servants."

The aforementioned statement of law made by the learned Division Bench of this Court defies any ignorance on the part of the respondent State. This approach adopted by the respondent State is causing unnecessary rush in the courts and encourage apathy on the part of bureaucracy. Such an apathy has to be completely discouraged and the law as laid down by this Court upheld by Honble the Supreme Court has to be followed, applied and implemented. The respondent State cannot expect this Court to express opinion in every case where similar facts situation is involved as is the position in the present case. If no one in the bureaucracy is prepared to take responsibility of stating honestly and fairly that the facts of the case are covered by the judgment of this Court or the Supreme Court then it is a sad day for the citizens of this country because it unnecessary clog the working of the Courts by disposing those cases which are required to be taken care of by the respondent State and its executives.

6. In view of the above, we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 (P-5) by declaring the same to by illegal. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate the family pension of the petitioner by taking into account the whole service of her husband rendered from 14.10.1968 to 19.10.1979. The family pension shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In view of the law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway, (2003)1 SCC 184 [LQ/SC/1993/845] : [2002(7) SLR 1 (SC)], we direct that the arrears be paid to the petitioner for a period of 38 months preceding the date of filing of the earlier petition i.e. CWP No. 11340 of 2005. The respondents shall keep on paying to the petitioner the family pension for life.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Order accordingly.