Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10023 of 2021 Petitioner :- Geeta Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepti Srivastava,Ajal Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Instructions filed today are taken on record.
The present petition has been filed claiming for the following reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.05.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Regional Food Controller, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda.
(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to make the payment of full/final family pension (except the amount of pension already paid) etc. along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner within a period specified by this Hon'ble Court."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the wife of Late Ghanshyam Das Kushwaha, who was working with the Regional Food Controller at Banda. It is stated that by means of an FIR registered against the husband of the petitioner registered as Case Crime No. 18 of 2011, simultaneous departmental proceedings were also initiated against the husband of the petitioner. The said departmental proceedings resulted in exoneration of the husband of the petitioner by means of an order dated 27th September, 2011. However, the criminal case continued against the husband of the petitioner. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner died on 26th January, 2020 and prior to his death had attained the age of superannuation on 29th February, 2016.
The petitioner claims that during the life time of the husband of the petitioner, he was being paid the interim pension and was also paid the gratuity to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled, however, after the death of her husband, the family pension has been denied to the petitioner solely on account of pendency of criminal case, which was initiated vide Case Crime No. 18 of 2011.
The Standing Counsel, on instructions, has brought before this Court the facts that after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner, as the criminal case was pending, the interim pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner's husband, which was paid to him also to the extent of 100%, however, the gratuity was not paid.
It bears from the instructions that the non-payment of the gratuity payable to the husband of the petitioner, the interim pension fixed and paid to the husband of the petitioner and non- payment of the family pension to the petitioner is solely attributed to the pendency of the criminal case, which was instituted against the husband of the petitioner. It is argued that as the criminal case is pending, the petitioner is not entitled to the claims of family pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argues that once the husband of the petitioner died, the criminal case stands abated automatically and the benefits to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled and subsequent to his death, the benefits to which the petitioner is entitled, cannot be denied solely on account of the pendency of criminal case.
The parties agreed that the payment of pension is governed by the CSR Rules, which have been adopted by the State Government for payment of pension, reliance is placed upon Rule 351-A of the CSR Rules, which entitle the State Government to withhold the pension on account of pendency of departmental proceedings or criminal case, however, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the husband of the petitioner has died and as such, as on date, no criminal case can be said to be pending against the husband of the petitioner. Thus, the recourse to Rule 351-A of CSR Regulations is not available to the respondents for denying the benefits to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled and for denying the payment of family pension to which the petitioner is entitled.
In view of the said fact that the petitioner's husband has died and the criminal case cannot be said to be pending, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be paid final pension to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled after deducting the amount paid as interim pension. The petitioner shall also be paid the gratuity to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled and the petitioner shall also be entitled for family pension. The other retiral dues to which the petitioner may be entitled but not paid shall also be paid to the petitioner.
The said payment, as directed above, shall be made to the petitioner with all expedition preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent concerned. The family pension shall be paid forthwith.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 S. Rahman