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 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Satya Bhama Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 November, 2018

Author: Alok Singh

Bench: Alok Singh

                                                                           Judgment reserved
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

                             Writ Petition No. 240 (SS) of 2007

Satya Bhama Devi.                                                     ..........Petitioner.

                                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                                          ...... Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.


Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.

1. Petitioner's husband was working as Headmaster in a Government aided Junior High School and he was retired on 30.06.1981. He was getting pension with effect from 01.07.1981 and he was died on 26.12.1991. Petitioner applied for family pension, which respondents refused to pay. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.

2. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the record.

3. Petitioner's husband was getting pension under Triple Pension Scheme introduced by State Government vide Government Order dated 17.12.1965. As per Rule 24 of this Scheme, family pension shall in no case extend beyond a period of five years from the date on which the deceased employee would have attained the age of superannuation. Petitioner's husband was retired on 30.06.1981 after attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, from the date of retirement, five years would complete on 29.06.1986 and petitioner's husband had already taken pension till 1991.

2

4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Alok Singh, J.) 14.11.2018 SKS