RADHIKA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for direction to the Respondents to pay family pension to the Petitioner with effect from 21.01.2006 alongwith 18% interest.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the husband of the Petitioner namely Radha Ballabh Tewari was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh in the year 1950. On 30.06.1977 he retired from the post of Head Master of Primary School. After his retirement he was granted pension with effect from 01.07.1977 and he died on 12.01.2006. After the death of her husband, the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 3 and requested for grant of family pension to her. Application for grant of family pension was also submitted by her before Respondent No. 4. When nothing was done, the Petitioner served a legal notice on Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 through her Advocate for granting her family pension. In the said notice the Respondents No. 3 and 4 were also informed that the case of the Petitioner is identical as of Smt. Parvati Pandey to whom pension was granted. In reply to legal notice the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent No. 3 that case of Smt. Parvati Devi is different from the case of the Petitioner. It was further informed that since the husband of the Petitioner had not deposited the contribution towards Family Pension during his service period, family pension is not admissible to her.

(3.) THE Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 have filed their counter affidavit in which they have stated that at the time of superannuation of late husband of the Petitioner on 30.06.1977, there was no provision of family pension and after his death the amount of Life Insurance, GPF was paid to him. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that as per the then prevailing Government Order No. A -5355715 -3133 -1962 Lucknow dated 17/12/1965 the husband of the Petitioner was given pension during his life time. In the said Government Order it was provided that after the death of the employee the Family Pension will be given only upto five years from the date of superannuation. Since the husband of the Petitioner was alive during the said period, Petitioner is not entitled for Family Pension. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that the husband of the Petitioner had not opted the subjected New Retiremental Benefit Scheme which was introduced through the Government Order No. 519/15(3) -79/77 dated 8/3/1978, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to get Family Pension. But the Respondents have also not annexed these Government Orders namely G.O. No. A -5355715 -3133 -1962 Lucknow dated 17.12.1965 and GO. No. 519/15 (3) -79/77 dated 08.03.1978. The Respondents have further taken a plea in their counter affidavit that since the husband of the Petitioner late Radha Ballabh Tewari was superannuated on 30.06.1977 and his pension was sanctioned on 07.07.1977 from the State of U.P. the liability of payment of Family Pension of the Petitioner, if any, is on the State of U.P. as per Section 54 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.