KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Krishna Kumari Agrawal has approached this court for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.05.2005 refusing to accord family pension in her favour and further for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner family pension in accordance with Government Order dated 08.08.1986 and the Circular dated 01.12.1991.

(2.) Petitioner's husband late Sunder Shyam Agrawal was appointed as Tahvildar on 18.11.1954. He died during service period on 20.11.1978. Petitioner has contended that her husband was entitled for all pensonary benefits as admissible to government servants. Petitioner submits that she has been insisting for grant of family pension, but no response was made to her. On 15.07.1996, Chief Treasury Officer wrote letter to the Director stating therein that entire papers were being submitted for action. On 23.06.1997 Deputy Director wrote letter to Chief Treasury Officer, Gorakhpur for family pension and appending therewith copy of service book and pension proforma. Letters to the same effect were written by Director of Treasury on 05.09.1997 and 13.05.1998 to the Secretary, U.P Government for payment of family pension. On 03.08.1998, the Director of Pension wrote letter to the District Magistrate to take steps for payment of family pension to petitioner in accordance with the Government Order dated 08.08.1986. Petitioner has contended that thereafter repeated request was made by her, but nothing was done in the matter. On 28.02.2000 Chief Treasury Officer, Gorakhpur wrote letter to the Joint Director stating therein that petitioner's matter is not covered by the Government Order, for which matter has been referred to the State Government for certain guidelines, and till date no information has been received. Petitioner has contended that she has been making repeated request, but no action was being taken, and ultimately she preferred writ petition No.43505 of 2000, Smt. Krishna Kumari Agrawal v. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court on 01.12.2001 directed the respondents to take decision in the matter within time frame provided by this Court, but no action was taken then Contempt petition was filed, and thereafter order dated 20.05.2005 has been passed taking stand that petitioner is not entitled for family pension. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that nature of appointment of Tahvildar was governed as per terms and conditions provided in Government Order dated 25.03.1971, and further for the first time decision was taken on 31.03.1981 to extend the benefit to the employees working in Cash Branch as was admissible to State Employees. In the Government Order dated 31.03.1981, there was no provision for family pension and provision of family pension was made vide Government Order dated11.12.1991 and the same was made applicable with effect from 01.01.1981. Petitioner's husband had died on 20.11.1978, as such; her claim was not covered under the said Government Order. It has been further contended that by means of Government Order dated 31.03.1987 contractual arrangement in the Cash Branch was finished and regular cadre was sought to be created, as such no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. Qua Rama Shankar Pandey, with whom petitioner is claiming parity, it has been stated that Rama Shankar Pandey died on 18.05.1989 and by that time the post of Tahvildar was given the status of State employees, as such the said benefit was not extendable to petitioner.