GEETA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

(2.) The facts of this case have already been noted by this Court in a detailed order dated 18.11.2019, which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:-

(3.) Today, Sri Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that certain issues had been framed by this Court in paragraph 7 of the order dated 18.11.2019. He contends that one Sri Ram Sajeevan Tripathi, who had been appointed along with the husband of the petitioner and is also similarly circumstanced, has been granted the benefit of family pension by this Court in Writ Petition No.1880 (SS) of 2013 in re: Ram Sajeevan Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 04.05.2016, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.12.2019. Sri Mishra also contends that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Appeal (Defective) No.423 of 2017 on 05.02.2017 filed by the State against the said judgment. Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Ram Sajeevan Tripathi (supra), Sri Mishra argues that once no challenge was raised to the appointment order of the husband of the petitioner and admittedly the husband of the petitioner worked from 1979 till 1999 and again was permitted to join on 29.11.2015 and thereafter retired from service on 30.06.2016 consequently there cannot be any occasion for not extending the benefit of judgment of Ram Sajeevan Tripathi (supra) to the petitioner also for grant of family pension.