Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Salochna Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 June, 2023

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya

                                                    1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                              CWP No.3908 of 2023

                                              Date of Decision : 20th June, 2023




                                                                                .

    Smt. Salochna Devi
                                                                         ...... Petitioner
                                     Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                                                         ......Respondents

    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
                                     1
    Whether approved for reporting? No

    For the Petitioner           : Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K.
                                   Gupta, Advocate.

    For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
                          Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional
                          Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma &


                          Ms. Sharmila Patiyal, Additional Advocates
                          General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
                          Advocate General, for the State.




                                     Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for
                                     Respondent No.4.





    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

Notice. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioner's late husband was engaged on daily wage basis in HPPWD in the year 1996. In 2004, services of late husband of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2023 20:32:12 :::CIS 2

petitioner were regularized, however, on 10.10.2005, he had expired.

At the time of death of late husband of petitioner, there was no provision to provide family pension and in the New Pension Scheme, .

petitioner was denied the family pension. However, subsequently, vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd February, 2022, (Annexure P-1), Government of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to extend the additional relief on disability/death of Government servants covered under new Defined Contribution Pension System as per Office Memorandum No.38/41/06/P&PW(A), dated 5th May, 2009, issued by the Government of India. Since, petitioner being wife of late Government Employee, has become entitled to family pension in terms of the aforesaid instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to competent authority to sanction family pension from the due date, in terms of the aforesaid decision taken by the Government.

3. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed in the instant case, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents and as such, same is dispensed with.

3. Careful perusal of Office Memorandum dated 22nd February, 2022 (Annexure P-1), clearly reveals that the State Government has decided to extend the benefit of additional relief on disability/death of Government servant in terms of the New Defined Contribution Pension ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2023 20:32:12 :::CIS 3 System, introduced by the Government of India, vide Office Memorandum No.38/41/06/P&PW(A), dated 5th May, 2009, wherein, there is provision to provide family pension (including enhanced family .

pension) computed in terms of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, if death in service is not attributable to the Government duty. As per the aforesaid communication on disability/death of Subscriber, the benefit of the additional relief, i.e. Invalid Pension/Family Pension shall be payable to the Government

4.

r to employee/eligible member of family in accordance with provisions contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions states that petitioner would be content and satisfied, in case necessary directions are issued to the competent authority to consider and decide her case in light of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 22nd February, 2022, expeditiously in a time bound manner.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for family pension, in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22nd February, 2022 (Annexure P-1), expeditiously and in any event within a period of four weeks. In case petitioner is found entitled to relief, as prayed in the instant petition in ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2023 20:32:12 :::CIS 4 terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the same shall be released forthwith. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if she still .

remains aggrieved.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.






                                               ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )





                                                        Judge



                                                  ( Satyen Vaidya)
    [
                    r                                   Judge
    June 20, 2023 (KS)









                                               ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2023 20:32:12 :::CIS