JUDGMENT :

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 22.11.2022 and 17.1.2023 whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity and pension of late husband of the petitioner on the ground that husband of the petitioner was not working against the sanctioned post.

3. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Cost Accountant on probation basis on 18.06.1988 and he continued to work regularly. The husband of the petitioner expired on 11.06.2019. The husband of the petitioner was working regularly and regular service benefits including the revised pay scale and allowances and benefit of ACP were given by the respondents from time to time.

4. It is sad to note that petitioner's husband services were never regularized despite his having spent the entire working life with the department. During his service period, petitioner was also provided all the service benefits as provided to the regular employees. Thus, for all practical purposes, petitioner was treated as regular employee.

5.