Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65734 of 2013 Petitioner :- Prabhawati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Chaubey,D.V.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Petitioner's husband was employed as Lecturer in Jeevan Ram Inter College, Maunath Bhanjan, District - Mau, which is a recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 with regard to payment of salary is also applicable upon it. After attaining the age of superannuation on 4.8.1969, petitioner's husband started receiving pension as per the scheme introduced in the department on 17.12.1965. He continued to receive pension till he remained alive. Petitioner's husband, however, has died on 29th December, 1986. It is thereafter that petitioner has made an application for release of family pension, but her claim has not been considered. Ultimately, an order has been passed on 3.4.2013 by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), rejecting petitioner's claim for payment of family pension. The order records that in terms of the Government Order dated 17.12.1965, claim of family pension was maintainable only for a period of five years i.e. upto 4.8.1974 and thereafter no pension is payable to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a Government Order dated 31st March, 1982 as well as a subsequent Government Order dated 16th June, 1984 to submit that claim for payment of family pension to petitioner is covered thereunder. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Smt. Urmila Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 54293 of 2014, decided on 23.4.2019 as well as judgment of this Court in Smt. Jagmati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 10861 of 2006, decided on 5.10.2009. This Court in Writ Petition of Smt. Urmila Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), has been pleased to observe as under:-
“7. It appears that the Government Order dated 31.3.1982 was further clarified vide Government Order dated 16.6.1984, which is reproduced:-
^^f'k{kk ¼8½ vuqHkkxA y[kuÅ% fnukad% 16 twu] 1984 fo"k;%& jktdks"k ls lgk;rk izkIr twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy@ mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;@ fMxzh dkyst ds f'k{kdks ,oa mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk lapkfyr izkbejh ,oa twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyks ds f'k{kdks ds ikfjokfjd isU'ku dh Lohd`frA egksn;
mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k 6246@15&8&3004 ¼16½@77] fnukad 31 ekpZ] 1982 dk Li"Vhdj.k djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] eqt¶Qjuxj us vius i=kad ikfj0 ¼isU'ku½ 7472&75@83&84 fnukad 21-1-84 }kjk ;g i`PNk dh gS fdlh v/;kid dh e`R;q ;fn 1&10&81 ds iwoZ gks x;h gS] rks mlds vkfJrks dh ikfjokfjd isU'ku dk ykHk feysxk vFkok ughA bl lEcU/k es ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd iz'uxr jktkKk ds micU/kksa ds v/khu ;fn e`rd v/;kid ds vkfJrks dks vU;Fkk ikfjokfjd isU'ku ns; gks] rks pkgs v/;kid dh e`R;q 1-10-81 ds iwoZ gqbZ gks vFkok ckn esa gqbZ gks mlds vkfJrksa dks fnukad 1&10&81 ls jktkKk ds izkfo/kkuksa ds v/khu ikfjokfjd isU'ku Lohd`r dh tk;xhA vxzsrj ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd e`rd v/;k;d ds vkfJrksa dks 1&10&81 ls iwoZ dh vof/k ds fy;s dksbZ vo'ks"k vkfn ds Hkqxrku dk iz'u ugh mBrk] D;ksfd iz'uxr ;kstuk 1&10&81 ls ykxw dh xbZ gSA d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djus dk d"V djsA Hkonh; xksfoUn ukjk;.k feJ la;qDr lfpo**
8. The Government Order dated 16.6.1984 clearly provides that benefit of family pension would be extended to even those teachers who have died prior to 1.10.1981 if the pension is otherwise payable. Claim of petitioner is that in view of such clarification issued by the State Government, she would be entitled to the benefit of family pension in terms of the Government Order dated 31.3.1982.
9. Claim of the petitioner apparently has been declined on the ground that the benefit of new pension scheme, introduced w.e.f. 1.3.1977, had not been opted by the deceased teacher. This plea taken by the respondents is wholly misconceived inasmuch as petitioner's husband was murdered in the year 1971 itself and was not alive on the date when options were called for availing of the benefit of new pension scheme. In her capacity as a widow the petitioner was already getting family pension as per the Government Order dated 17.12.1965. Petitioner was otherwise not expected to exercise any option inasmuch as the benefit of option was restricted to a teacher alone and not to the widow of the teacher. The object of issuing Government Order was to extend benefits of family pension to a teacher at par with the government servant. The Government Order clearly intends to extend beneficial treatment to the widow and other dependent persons of the deceased teacher for grant of family pension at part with the government servant. The respondents, therefore, are not justified in declining consideration to petitioner's claim only on the ground that an option had not been exercised by the deceased teacher.
10. The other ground taken in the order impugned is that the new pension scheme was introduced on 1.10.1981 and would not be extended to the petitioner, also can not be sustained. The dependent of the deceased employee who was entitled to benefit of family pension cannot be denied benefit of family pension, once it has already been clarified by the State that the modified pension scheme would be extended to teachers who have died prior to 31.10.1981 also. It may also be noticed that this Court while adjudicating the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has already held that the petitioner was entitled to family pension in accordance with the Government Order dated 31.3.1982 and 16.6.1984. The order passed by this Court on 24.3.2014, extracted above, has attained finality and it would not be open for the State to take a stand contrary to it. The benefit of the Government Orders in the matter relating to grant of family pension, therefore, cannot be denied to the petitioner.
11. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 26.5.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 stands quashed. The authority concerned shall take a fresh decision in the matter, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petition decided on 24.3.2014, as also the observations made in this judgment. The required decision would be taken within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. All consequential benefits, which are found to be due and payable to the petitioner in terms of the order, would be extended to her within a further period of three months thereafter.”
3. Though counter affidavit has been filed in which the averments made in the order impugned have been reiterated and reaffirmed but there is no satisfactory explanation to the interpretation of the Government Orders as has been noticed in the aforesaid judgment. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri Amar Nath Singh as well as Sri Satyam Singh, does not dispute that the controversy is similar.
4. For the reasons recorded in the judgment of this Court in Smt. Urmila Gupta (supra), whereby the Government Order dated 31st March, 1982 and 16.6.1984 have been relied upon to grant relief of family pension to the employees covered under the Government Order dated 17.12.1965, this Court is of the considered view that claim of petitioner is also liable to succeed for the reasons and observations contained in the aforesaid judgment.
5. The Government Order of 31st March, 1982 as interpreted on 16.6.1984, is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Consequently, the order impugned dated 3rd April, 2013 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the authority concerned to take a fresh decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ranjeet Sahu