Long-term service and integration into government employment structure can entitle temporary employees to pension and benefits, despite initial classification.

Order :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-

"(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondents, may kindly be directed to immediately determine the entitlement of petitioner, being legally wedded wife of Shri Ravindra Kumar, Veterinary Officer, to receive all retirement/service benefits and family pension in terms of Rule 12 (b), 54, 60 to 62 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension), Rules 1996 and consequently the respondents may kindly be directed to release, said dues with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in release of said benefits.

(b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondents, may kindly be directed to release, death gratuity of her husband Shri Ravindra Kumar and to release leave encashment amount, ESI claim amount, and to release Family Pension to petitioner, by treating death of her husband on duty, in terms of her entitlement as per Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension), Rules 1996 and arrears thereof be ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon,ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Shri Ravindra Kumar son of Shri Ramdhan, who was the employee of the respondent Department of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan and was holding the post of Veterinary Officer and posted last at Veterinary Hospital, Bijrad, in Tehsil- Chohtan, District-Barmer. As per the facts narrated in the writ petition, in order to meet the urgent requirement at various veterinary hospitals in Rajasthan, the respondent Animal Husbandry Department proceeded to fill up the vacant posts of veterinary officers under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules 1963 (for short, 'the Rules of 1963') and proceeded with selection process through a selection committee constituted by the Government and accordingly, an advertisement dated 26.08.1997 came to be issued by the department, wherein it was provided that the posts of Veterinary Officers are being filled up on urgent temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till regularly selected candidates are available through RPSC and there was stipulation in the said advertisement that the employees shall be paid regular pay scale and other benefits attached to the post. The petitioner, who was possessing all the requisite qualifications applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and after facing the selection process, he was offered appointment as Veterinary Officer at Akola, Chittorgarh vide appointment order dated 24.09.1997 and he was given regular pay scale of Rs. 2000- 60-2300-75-3200-100-3500, which later came to be revised to the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 under the Rajasthan (Revised Pay Scale) Rules 1998 and further it came to be revised in the year 2008 in terms of the recommendation of pay commission. The husband of petitioner joined duties in compliance of the said appointment order on 03.10.1997. The services of the petitioner's husband were extended from time to time, but later on the respondent department passed an order dated 29.06.2000, by which services of all such temporary appointed veterinary officers including that of petitioner's husband Shri Ravindra Kumar, working at various Veterinary Hospitals, came to be terminated w.e.f. 30.06.2000.

3. Being aggrieved of the termination of service various persons including the husband of the petitioner preferred writ petitions individually. The writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 2073/2000. However, unfortunately, all such writ petition, came to be rejected by Single Bench of this court vide order dated 19.07.2000. Being a