MST RAMBASI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this petition is about post retiral benefit of late Sheo Pujan Singh and family pension payable to the petitioner who is his wife. He was appointed on 6.5.1949 in non-regular work charge establishment. On 1.5.1965, he was appointed in regular work charge establishment. He became permanent cleaner w.e.f. 1.4.1975. He was served with a notice on 19.4.1989 that his date of birth being 1.9.1922, he should have retired much earlier but under mistake he has continued, therefore, he would retire on 20.4.1989. Sheo Pujan Singh did not challenge the order. He died in July, 1990.

(2.) In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the leave encashment, general provident fund and group insurance, etc., was paid but pension and gratuity could be paid only after it was determined by the competent authority. It further states that a letter was sent to the Chief Accounts Officer for determining pension but it was returned as Sheo Pujan Singh should have retired on 31.8.1982 but since he continued till 1989, it was necessary to get approval of excess service rendered by him by the State Government. The Accountant General, Allahabad also returned the papers to be sent again after the approval was obtained from the State Government. The counter-affidavit mentioned that the pension shall be paid after receipt of approval.

(3.) Whether Sheo Pujan Singh was born on 1.9.1935, as claimed by the petitioner or he was born on 1.9.1922 is not material, as admittedly he became permanent cleaner on 1.4.1975 and worked till 19.4.1989. His pension and gratuity was withheld and the family pension has not been paid because the department was required to get approval of excess service and for no other reason. The counter-affidavit mentions that letter to the Chief Accounts Officer and the Accountant General's Office, Allahabad were sent on 25.4.1990 and 6.6.1991 respectively. Letter was sent to Chief Engineer on 9.1.1991. But it avoids disclosing the date of reply from these authorities. What is worth mentioning is that even though the counter-affidavit was filed in February, 1996, It only mentioned that the request for approval of excess service to Chief Engineer was being made.