ABHA AGARWAL Vs. VICECHANCELLOR ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. (Mrs.) Abha Agarwal/Petitioner............................represented by Sri R.B. Singhal; Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University/Respondent No. 1; Registrar, Allahabad University/Respondent No. 2; Accounts Officer/Internal Auditor, Allahabad University/Respondent No. 3..................represented by Sri Prakash Padia; Treasury Officer, Treasury, Allahabad/Respondent No. 4......represented by learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner before us, Dr. (Mrs.) Abha Agarwal, has filed this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India claiming following reliefs :

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court pleading, inter-alia, that her husband Dr. D.C. Agarwal, an eminent personality in the field of education was serving as Reader in the Department of Applied Physics, University of Allahabad, when he died prematurely on 6th July, 1992 leaving behind his wife (the petitioner) and two minor daughters. Petitioner was also working as Lecturer in the Department of English in an affiliated College of the University (called 'Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad1) since July, 1972. She was later promoted on the post of Reader and working as such in the said College when her husband died. Petitioner applied for family pension; University passed requisite orders sanctioning family pension vide order dated 8th February, 1994 at certain rates mentioned in the said order (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) at the rate of Rs. 1372/- per month for the period 7.7.1992 to 2.6.1999.

(3.) All of sudden petitioner found that an amount of Rs. 44,824.55 has been deducted from the family pension account in the Bank when she happened to see her Pass Book of the said bank account. Petitioner made request for furnishing copy of the order on the basis of which said deduction was made. She was later confronted with Government Order dated 16th May, 1988 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) by the Treasury Officer/ Respondent who referred to clause (iv) of the said Government Order on the basis of which petitioner was not entitled for Dearness Allowance on family pension since she was employed. Petitioner claims to have come across a news report published in 'Northern India Patrika, Sunday dated 20th November, 2000 which referred to a decision of Supreme Court holding that a widow working independently would not be deprived of benefit of Dearness Allowance on family pension (Annexure-4-A to the Writ Petition). It is contended that the petitioner cannot be deprived of benefit of Dearness Allowance on family pension on the basis of alleged Government Order in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of H.S.E.B. and Ors. v. Azad Kaur, 2000 (87) FLR 435 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition).