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 5, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Manki Devi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 25 April, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63564
 
Judgment reserved on : 22.04.2025
 
Judgment Delivered on : 25.04.2025
 

 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35393 of 2010
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Manki Devi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashoka Kumar Dubey,Uday Shankar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- K.S.Kushwaha,Sanjay Chaturvedi,Sanjay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ashoka Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State at length.

2. In the present case, husband of petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the concerned School on 01.03.1966, however, he died on 16.08.1970 in harness.

3. It is the case of petitioner that since 1970, she has repeatedly approached the concerned respondent to sanction family pension, however, no decision was taken. Therefore, she was constrained to file present writ petition in the year 2010, i.e., after about four decades of death of her husband with prayer to sanction family pension.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, however, some relevant facts were not brought on record that initially a Family Pension Scheme known as Triple Benefit Scheme was promulgated on 17.12.1965 and according to its Clause 24, family pension could be granted only if an employee has worked not less than 20 years of qualifying service and family pension could be granted only for a period of 10 years. Applicant's husband has worked only for a period of 4 years and 5½ months, therefore no family pension could be granted.

5. A New Pension Scheme was introduced with effect from 01.03.1977 through a notification dated 08.03.1978, which would also not be applicable in the case of petitioner, since it was promulgated subsequent to date of death of husband of petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently referred a resolution G.O. dated 21.09.1979, which provides that a family pension could be given to an employee even when he has worked only for one year or even less than one year, before he died.

7. However, the Court is of opinion that it would not be helpful to the case of petitioner since as referred above, when the husband of petitioner died, a Triple Benefit Scheme was under force. The condition was that the employee was in service for 20 years and the above referred GO dated 21.09.1979 was prospective in nature, therefore, no benefit of it could be granted. The Court also takes note a document annexed along with this writ petition, which refers numbers of Government Orders and there is a reference to the G.O. dated 31.3.1982, which also states that no family pension would be admissible, those who retired or died before 01.03.1977, therefore, the said G.O. is also against the case of the petitioner, even otherwise petitioner has approached this Court after 40 years of death of her husband though it may be a case that denial of family pension may be a continuous grievance, still such huge delay, i.e. of 55 years, cannot be ignored and since above referred Government Orders, being against her, no family pension could be granted.

8. The judgment cited on behalf of petitioner, i.e., Smt. Somwati v. State of U.P. and 2 others, Special Appeal Defective No.503 of 2015; Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2019 SC 4390; Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 others, Writ-A No.9201 of 2018; and Smt. Bodari Shukla v. State of U.P., 2003 0 Supreme(Al) 455, would also not be beneficiary, since they are on a different issue, whereas a judgment cited by respondent passed in case of Chandrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and another, 2010 LawSuit (All) 2827 is on the issue and applicable in facts and circumstances of present case, though against the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, no relief could be granted to the petitioner and this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 A.N. Mishra