Laxmi Bai Vs Union of
India & ANR
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned
counsel for the appellant and learned Solicitor General of India. This appeal
emanates from the judgment and order dated12.3.2004 of the Rajasthan High Court
delivered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2282 of 1998. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the husband of the appellant-Chauthmal was regularized in service vide order dated
8.5.1972. Once he was regularized in the year 1972 then the question of his
getting screened for regularization in the year 1977 did not arise. In this
case the husband of the appellant admittedly died in 1975 but before that he
was regularized. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court
cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to all consequential
benefits, including family pension.
We direct the
respondents to ensure that the outstanding payment, including the family
pension is granted to the appellant within three months. This appeal is, accordingly,
disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
...................J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
...................J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
NEW
DELHI;
10TH
JANUARY, 2011
Back