The entitlement to pensionary benefits is governed by established rules and procedures, and lack of clear evidence of participation in a pension scheme may entitle the petitioner to such benefits.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 26.5.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, direction or order, it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled for family pension and the State Government is under an obligation to accept the revised option of the petitioner etc. etc.

2. It arises in the following circumstances: The husband of the petitioner retired on 17.1974 after attaining the age of superannuation. The husband of the petitioner expired on 30.7.1974. Her husband of the petitioner expired on 30.7.1974. Her husband was working as Chowkidar in the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Pindwara and at the time or retirement, he was posted at Saie Pariyozna Sub Division No. 3. The petitioner is the widow of late/Shankerla), Chowkidar and is entitled to get pension which is being denied to her and therefore, this writ petition is preferred. It was submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner made various representations to all concerned officers of the Stale Government with effect from 19.1990 to 8.4.1991 and the copies of the representations are marked as Ex.1 to Ex. 5. It was flirther submitted in the writ petition that on the representations of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Jawai Nahar Khand Sumerpur (Raj.) had written to the Assistant Engineer for necessary action and the copies of the communications between Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer are marked as Ex.6 to Ex.9. It was further submitted in the writ petition that on representation by the petitioner in the public interest litigation, the Collector, Sirohi also written to the executive Engineer for grant of pension to the petitioner through letter dated 22.1991, a copy of which is marked as Ex. 10. However, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Pindwara through letter dated 6.1991 (Ex. 11) that the benefit of pension could not be granted to her because the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) had been given to her and on this ground, she was denied pension and mainly that order dated 6.199 1 (Ex.il) is attacked in this petition. The Case case of petitioner in this petition is:

(1) That he husband did not opt the benefit of CPF Scheme and no amount was deducted under that Scheme and, therefore, if the petitioner has simply stated in the letter dated 19.1990 (Ex.1) that the received the amount of Rs. 2185/-under CPF Scheme, it should not have been accepted by the respondents as she was illiterate lady and she did not know the pros and cons of anything.

(2) That since she did not receive any benefit of the CPF Scheme, therefore, denial of pension resulted in

infringement of her legal right and, therefore, she be allowed the pension as per the Rules of the State Government. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents on 11.1998 and the main objection taken by the respondents in the reply was that Shankarlal, husband of the petitioner, did not opt for pension as required under the Rules and since after retirement, he was paid CPF amount, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any pension and furthermore, apart from this, the respondents are moving higher authorities to grant pensionary benefits to her.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4. The question whether benefit of CPF Scheme was made available to the petitioner or not, is a question of fact and that cannot be decided in the writ petition.

5. However, there is one aspect on this count that no doubt in the letter dated 19.1990 (Ex. 1) the petitioner had written that she was paid Rs. 2185/-towards amount of CPF, but apart from this, there is no documentary evidence produced by the respondents show