Temporary Government servants, including those compulsorily retired, are entitled to pensionary benefits as per Fundamental Rule 56 and Government Order dated 1. 7. 1989.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sanjay Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and both the parties have agreed that the writ petition itself be finally decided. Consequently, the writ petition is being finally decided.

( 2 ) FACTS of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners husband late Sri Som Dutt Sharma was appointed as Panchayat Mantri on 12th August, 1958 in Vikas khand, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar. The post of Panchayat Mantri was designated as Gram vikash Adhikari. He continued to work on the post till 21. 12. 1992 on which date he was compulsorily retired invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 of Financial Hand Book vol. II, Part II to IV. At the time of compulsory retirement, Som Dutt Sharma was working on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar vide his letter dated 14. 1. 1997 wrote to the Block Development Officer that pension papers of Sri Som dutt Sharma be immediately prepared and sent. In the aforesaid letter, it was stated that by the letter dated 18. 9. 1993 pension papers of Sri Som Dutt Sharma were asked to be sent. It was directed that service book of Sri Sharma be sent so that papers be prepared for forwarding it to the Directorate. The Chief Development Officer also issued a letter dated 20. 3. 1997 with regard to preparation of pension papers of Sri Sharma. After some correspondence, the matter was ultimately forwarded to the Director of Pension and certain objections were raised with regard to petitioners pension papers by the letter dated 17. 2. 1999, in reply to which letter dated 9. 4. 1999, was written by the Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar complying the deficiency pointed out therein. Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari in his letter dated 9. 4. 1999 has written that Som Dutt Sharma retired as temporary employee. He has further stated that his all service period qualify for pension and he has rendered more than thirty four years service. The letter dated 11. 8. 1999 was written by the Director of the Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari and thereafter a similar letter dated 31. 12. 1999 was written by the Director of Pension to the Zila Panchayat Raj adhikari informing that pensionary benefits are not liable to be given to the petitioner in view of paragraph 14 of the Government order dated 24. 6. 1996. It was further stated that the pensionary benefits are not payable also in accordance with the Government order dated 26. 8. 1989. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 31. 12. 1999 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of pension and gratuity to the petitioner of her husband from 1992 to 14. 8. 1997 and thereafter the family pension be paid from 15. 8. 1997. Current family pension was also prayed to be paid. Claim of interest was also made on pension and gratuity. Sri Som Dutt Sharma died on 14. 8. 1997.

( 3 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioners husband was compulsorily retired on 21. 11. 1992 and he died on 14. 8. 1997. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners husband was compulsory retired on 21. 11. 1992 who was a temporary Government servant. It has been stated that by the Government order dated 1. 7. 1989, pensionary benefits were provided to the temporary Government servants who were superannuated at the age of 58 years or 60 years or opted voluntary retirement due to invalidity. It has further been stated that by guidelines as contained in Government order dated 24. 6. 1996 paragraph 14 clarifies that the temporary Government servants who have been compulsory retired are not covered by the Government order dated 1. 7. 1989. Due to above reason, the entitlement of the petitioner was denied. The petitioner filed