SHEELA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dtd. 28/1/2023, rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of family pension. By amendment made to the writ petition under orders of this Court, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Service Rules of 1966') to the extent that these do not provide similar treatment in the matter of grant of family pension to employees of the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, on one hand, and members of the centralized service, on the other. A further writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari is prayed to quash the amendments made vide Notification dtd. 11/1/1988 (for short, the Amendment of 1988), published in the Gazette, to the extent it repeals Regulation 6 of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 (for short, 'the Regulations of 1962').

(2.) Smt. Sheela Dubey, the petitioner, is a widow. She is the daughter of Saraswati Narayan Tiwari, who was a Class-III employee with the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the Nigam'). It is not in dispute that Saraswati Narayan Tiwari retired from the service of the Nigam in the year 1992, earning a retirement pension, amongst other post retiral benefits. There is also no cavil about the fact that Saraswati Narayan Tiwari received his retirement pension until his demise on 18/11/2013. After he passed away, his widow, Smt. Katyayani Tiwari claimed and was paid a family pension in accordance with rules. Katyayani Tiwari received her retirement pension until her demise on 23/7/2016. This course of nature would not have brought misfortune for the petitioner, but for the fact that the petitioner's husband, Anil Kumar, pre-deceased both his father-in-law and mother-in-law, exiting this mortal world on 11/5/2012.

(3.) Whatever the late Anil Kumars financial affairs be, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, after her husbands demise, came over to her parents house and lived with them. After her fathers demise, she stayed on with her mother. It is her case that the only source of income, after her husbands demise, was her fathers retirement pension, till he was alive, and, after his death, the family pension that her mother received for her fathers services. The petitioner claimed a family pension, after her mothers demise, for her fathers services, she being a widowed daughter, who had become a widow before her fathers demise and was entirely dependent upon his pension for her sustenance.