MUSTARI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the case having been listed 'peremptorily', no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition, however, V.K Bajpayee, learned Standing Counsel, representing respondents - State Authorities, is present. He has assisted the Court in disposing of the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who is wife of Late Naeem Khan, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dtd. 25/1/2019 passed by the Director General, Prantiya Rakshak Dal/Vikas Dal Evam Yuva Kalyan, U.P., Lucknow; vide the impugned order the petitioner's claim for retirement dues of her late husband, who was paid regular salary for the post of junior clerk from 1992 to 2007, till he died, pursuant to the order dated 06.12.20205 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), has been declined on the ground that her late husband was not appointed against a sanctioned post, he was never regularized on the post of junior clerk and only the pay-scale of junior clerk was given to him in compliance of the order dtd. 6/12/2005 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 545 of 2016 instituted by him; late husband of the petitioner was not given substantive and permanent employment and, therefore, he was not qualified to get retirement dues and, therefore, the petitioner's claim for family pension has also been declined.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Bajpaiee, learned Standing Counsel, has tried to justify the reasons given in the impugned order, declining the claim of the petitioner for retirement-cum-death dues of late husband of the petitioner as well as family pension.-