The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ground taken by the respondents to deny the benefit of family pension to the petitioner was factually incorrect, arbitrary, and illegal, and the documents submitted by the petitioner supported her claim for family pension.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - In the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P-10), vide which order, claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension after death of her husband has been declined by the respondents on the ground that late husband of the petitioner had never opted for the pension scheme which came into being in the year 1993.

2. As per the facts mentioned in the present petition, late husband of the petitioner, namely Itwari Lal, was appointed on the post of Boatman with the respondent-Department on 09.08.1982, but while working on the said post, he unfortunately died on 07.01.2004, leaving behind the petitioner, i.e. his wife, and two sons. After his death, the petitioner claimed for the grant of family pension but despite the fact that the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Panipat had recommended the claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension, vide letter dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure P-1), the respondents vide order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P10) declined the grant of said benefit to the petitioner on the ground that Late Itwari Lal never opted for the pension scheme, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of family pension after death of her husband. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the aforesaid ground which has been taken into account by the respondents vide order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) to reject the benefit of grant of family pension to the petitioner is factually incorrect.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the letter dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure P-1) of the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Panipat, wherein the said Officer has recommended claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension to her and along with the said letter, the pension case and the option form, where Late Itwari Lal had opted for the pension scheme, were also sent to the authorities concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to create a dispute, the petitioner is being denied the benefit of grant of family pension, for which she is entitled for after death of her husband.

6. After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein it has been stated that after death of Itwari Lal, i.e. late husband of the petitioner, the record was perused by the respondent-Department and no option form was found, wherein the deceased-employee had opted for the pension scheme, which had came into being in the year 1993, and therefore, claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension to her is not sustainable. As per the respondents, the letter dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure P-1), which depicts the Option Form of late husband of the petitioner, is only a typographical error.

7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of family pension after death of her husband, who unfortunately died while in service on 07.01.2004, or not.

9. It is a conceded fact that respondent No.4 had sent letter dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure P-1) to the authorities concerned, wherein claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension was recommended. It is also a conceded position that along with the said letter, the pension case, the Option Form and the pension contribution statement of the late husband of the petitioner were also attached, so as to substantiate the claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension to her. Once the said documents were enclosed with the letter dated 08.12.2004, the same cannot be treated as typographical error, as being now stated by the respondents in their reply. In case, late husband of the petitioner had not opted for the concerned pension scheme, no r