1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. A direction has been sought to opposite parties for payment of arrears of family pension due to petitioner's mother for the period 01.03.1999 till 02.12.2009. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that his father, late Ram Khelawan Lal Srivastava superannuated in year 1991 from the post of regular Collection Amin. He was granted pensionary benefits in pursuance thereof and thereafter expired on 01.03.1999. It has been submitted that at that time petitioner's mother was alive and had made a representation for grant of family pension. When decision with regard to payment of family pension was not taken, petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.2905(S/S) of 2010 which was disposed of by means of order dated 13.05.2010 directing opposite parties to consider and decide representation. It has been submitted that in pursuance thereof the representation was decided by order dated 19.10.2010 by District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar admitting liability of State towards petitioner's mother. However, the matter was referred to State Government in view of fact that arrears for more than six years were also required to be made. When despite the aforesaid recommendation, necessary orders were not passed, present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that vide order dated 10.02.2011, opposite parties had been directed to file counter affidavit indicating reason for non-payment of arrears of family pension to petitioner's mother. It has been submitted that in pursuance thereof counter affidavit has been filed by District Magistrate again indicating the fact that necessary orders are required to be passed by the State Government where the matter is still pending.
4. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties, however, on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that petitioner never informed the authorities concerned either with regard to passing away of his father or with regard to passing away of his mother and that the first representation with regard to same was given on 02.03.2010. However, it has been submitted that no instruction has been received from the Sate Government.
5. In view of the aforesaid fact and particularly letter dated 19.10.2010 by District Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar admitting claim of petitioner's mother, there was no occasion for opposite parties to have kept the matter pending for such a long time. A perusal of the letter dated 19.10.2010 makes it clear that the matter has been referred to State Government where it is pending consideration for the past more than nine years.
6. In view of aforesaid, opposite party no.1, i.e. Secretary (Revenue) U.P., Lucknow is directed to take a decision with regard to claim of petitioner through his mother keeping in view the recommendation dated 19.10.2010, in case the same is already not decided. Petitioner is granted liberty to annex a copy of the recommendation dated 19.10.2010 along with a copy of this order. In the representation so made, petitioner is also granted liberty to raise claim with regard to interest on arrears of Family Pension which shall also be considered and decided. The said decision shall be taken by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said opposite party who shall keep in mind the recommendations dated 19.10.2010. The decision so taken shall be communicated to petitioner. Even in case some final decision on recommendation dated 19.10.2010 has already been taken, the same shall also be communicated to petitioner within the same period of four weeks.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 kvg/-