ANINDITA BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father who was an employee under the State respondents had retired on 31/8/1997, and that during the lifetime of the petitioner's father, the younger brother and the husband of the petitioner expired in the year 2002, the petitioner thereafter became solely dependent upon her father, who however, also expired in 2015, followed by her mother in 2016. The petitioner in these circumstances, made representation to the competent authorities for the grant of family pension to her, being a widowed daughter of the deceased pensioner under the scheme extended vide O.M. dtd. 23/2/2010, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Meghalaya which was however rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter dtd. 6/11/2019 (Annexure 8) the respondents had rejected the request of family pension on the ground that the father of the petitioner had 'died' (sic) before the issuance of the Amendment Rules on 4/11/2010, which were initially brought about by O.M. dtd. 23/2/2010. Learned counsel further submits that the stand taken by the respondents is incorrect, as the memorandum states that the revised provisions shall apply to State Govt. employees who retired/died in harness after 1/1/2007. It is further submitted, that the said Memorandum also contained revised provisions for calculation of pension and provided that for Government employees retiring on or after 1/1/2007, before the date of issuance of Office Memorandum dtd. 23/2/2010, were to be governed by rules and orders which were enforced before the issuance of the Office Memorandum dtd. 23/2/2010 which he contends is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.