Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10905 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the impugned order dated 09.07.2021 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi rejecting the family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the wife of the petitioner, namely, Late Smt. Madhulika Srivastava had rendered only 2 years 07 months and 21 days service before the date of her death.
The petitioner's claim is that his wife Late Smt. Madhulika Srivastava was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T.) Grade by the Committee of Management of Nagar Palika Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Ruhatta, Jaunpur and her appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide order dated 23.04.1995. The services of the petitioner's wife was regularized by the order of Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, dated 10.01.2020 w.e.e.f 22.03.2016. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Late Smt. Madhulika Srivastava died on 12.11.2018.
The petitioner being the husband of Late Smt. Madhulika Srivastava claimed family pension which has been denied to him on the ground that his wife does not have qualifying service for family pension as per Pension Rule, inasmuch as she has rendered only 02 years 07 months and 21 days service before her death.
Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 5th Division, Varanasi in the order dated 31.12.2020 has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner's wife was appointed in the year 1995, hence, service rendered by her as ad-hoc teacher has to be counted for the purpose of computing qualifying service for calculating pension and thus, impugned order is not sustainable in law. He submits that the law is settled that the ad-hoc services rendered by an employee is to be counted for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for pension. In support of his argument, he has has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported 2019 (7) ADJ 302 (DB).
This Court on 06.09.2021 sought instructions from the learned Standing Counsel.
Learned Standing Counsel has supplied the instructions, which is taken on record. In para-6 of the instructions, it is stated that the only ground for denying the family pension to the petitioner is that the wife of petitioner has not completed the qualifying service, so as to entitle the petitioner for family pension at higher rate.Para-6 of the instructions is extracted here-in-below:-
"6. यह ककि शश्री अकनिल किक ममार शश्रीवमास्तव पकत स्व० मधकललकिमा शश्रीवमास्तव सहमायकि अध्यमाकपकिमा निगर पमाललकिमा इण्टर किमाललेज जजौनिपकर दमारमा प्रस्तकत प्रत्यमावलेदनि कदनिमानांकि 09.03.2021 दमारमा स्वश्रीकिक त पमाररवमाररकि पपशनि सनांबनांलधत प्रकिरण किकी पकनिनः जमानांच /परश्रीक्षण कदनिमानांकि 21.05.2021 कवत्त एवनां ललेखमालधकिमारश्री (मण्डलश्रीय आकडट सनांगठनि) किमायमार्यालय सनांयक्त कशक्षमा कनिदलेशकि, वमारमाणसश्री मण्डल वमारमाणसश्री सले किरमायश्री गयश्री । प्रकिरण मप कवत्त एवनां लखले मालधकिमारश्री (मण्डलश्रीय आकडट सनांगठनि) किमायमार्यालय सनांयक्त कशक्षमा कनिदलेशकि , वमारमाणसश्री दमारमा प्रस्तकत आख्यमा कदनिमानांकि 25.06.2021 दमारमा स्पष्ट ककियमा गयमा ककि स्व० मधकललकिमा शश्रीवमास्तव किकी कवकनियकमत सलेवमा 02 वरर्या 07 ममाह 21 कदनि हहै जबककि बढश्री हहई दर पर पमाररवमाररकि पपशनि किकी स्वश्रीकिक कत हलेतक किम सले किम 07 वरर्या किकी अहर्याकिमारश्री सलेवमा आवश्यकि हहै । अतनः पमाररवमाररकि पपशनि मप सनांशशोधनि अपलेकक्षत निहश्री हहै । (सनांलग्नकि-5) उक्त सस्स्थिकत सले यमाचश्री शश्री अकनिल किक ममारमा शश्रीवमास्तव किशो उप कशक्षमा कनिदलेशकि (ममा०) पनांचम मण्डल वमारमाणसश्री कि पतमानांकि पपशनि /1502-03/2021-22 कदनिमानांकि 09.07.2021 दमारमा अवगत किरमायमा गयमा । (सनांलग्नकि-6) उप कशक्षमा कनिदलेशकि (ममा०) पनांचम मण्डल वमारमाणसश्री किले पतमानांकि पपशनि / 4625-30 /20-21 कदनिमानांकि 31.12.2020 दमारमा ककियले गयले कनिणर्याय किले आधमार पर स्व० मधकललकिमा शश्रीवमास्तव पत्निश्री शश्री अकनिल किक ममार शश्रीवमास्तव किमा स्वश्रीकिक त पमाररवमाररकि पपशनि आदलेश पतमानांकि /9416-20/20-21 कदनिमानांकि 10.02.2021 व पश्री०पश्री०ओ०सनां० 16116/ममा० 10431 एवनां यमाचश्री शश्री अकनिल किक ममार शश्रीवमास्तव किशो उप कशक्षमा कनिदलेशकि (ममा०) पनांचम मण्डल वमारमाणसश्री किले पतमानांकि पपशनि / 1502-03/2021-22 कदनिमानांकि 09.07.2021 दमारमा अवगत किरमायले गयले सस्स्थिकत सनांबनांलधत मप किशोई कभिन्नतमा निहश्री हहै । "
Be that as it may, the only ground which has been stated by the learned Standing counsel on the instructions is that the petitioner's wife has rendered only 02 years 07 months and 21 days service before death, therefore, is not entitled for high family pension. The ground on which the impugned order has been passed is not sustainable in view of the judgement of the Shashi Srivastava (supra), wherein this Court has held that the ad-hoc services rendered by an employee,, followed by regularization, is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension.
As the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Shashi Srivastava (supra), therefore, the order impugned dated 09.07.2021, passed by respondent no.2 is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondent no.2 to release the family pension to the petitioner at higher rate. The arrears of current family pension be paid to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order. It is needless to say that the respondent no.2 shall continue to pay the current family pension to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021/NS