Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10401 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neetu Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
On 24.4.2018, following orders were passed in the matter:-
"Order impugned records that petitioner being a daughter-in-law is not a part of the family and, therefore, is not entitled to family pension.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, put up tomorrow i.e. on 25.4.2018 as fresh, in order to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that daughter-in-law is also included with the definition of the family."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 59704 of 2012 (Mohd. Ikram Vs. State of U.P. and another). This Court in Mohd. Ikram (Supra) was dealing with grant of compassionate appointment to the dependant of deceased Government Servant and in that context definition of family was noticed by virtue of Rule 2(c) of Rules 1974. This provision apparently has no applicability in the facts of the present case. As per the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 family is defined under Rule 3(3) which does not include daughter-in-law. The view taken by the Officer with regard to the petitioner being not covered within the definition of family is therefore found to be correct.
Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018
AK Pandey