BHAGMANIYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner was appointed in 1947 in the Civil Supplies Department. It is alleged that he was retrenched from the said Department on 9th March, 1954. However, the widow in the writ petition, has not made any such pleading. On the other hand, she said that her husband continued in the Civil Supplies Department till 9th March. 1954 and, thereafter, he was appointed as Routine Grade Clerk on 18th April, 1954, in the Tubewell (East) Division, Department of Irrigation. She claims that he had in his credit, 28 years of service, namely 7 years in the Civil Supply Department and 21 years in the Irrigation Department, till 1st March, 1975. Before that the petitioner's husband had a heart attack some time around 1st March, 1973, since when he was on leave. The authorised leave had expired on 1st March, 1975. The petitioner alleges that her husband had applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st March, 1975. The husband of the petitioner would have retired on 31st August, 1984. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband died on 3rd March, 1990. The widow had applied for pension after completion of the formalities, which was refused by the respondents by letter dated 22nd February, 1990. Application for pension was filed on 22nd February, 1990 by the widow since her husband was suffering from Brain Haemorrhage during that period. But pension was refused by letter dated 24th September, 1990. It is this order, which has since been challenged.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have made out a case that the husband of the petitioner had never applied for pension on 4th March, 1975. No such letter is available in the office of the respondents. The formalities having been completed by the petitioner and not by the husband of the petitioner, therefore, no action can be taken on that basis. The said rejection of the claim was on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not entitled to leave after 1st March, 1975 and that the petitioner's husband neither applied for extension of leave nor he had asked for voluntary retirement. Therefore, no pension was available to him.

(3.) I have heard both Sri B. N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. R. Singh. learned standing counsel at length.