VIDYA DEVI KAITH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to release family pension and consequential benefits in her favour along with interest.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that her father Joban Dass retired from the service of respondent No.2 as Dafatri in the year 1977. Thereafter, her father continued to receive pension till his death in the year 1980. After the death of her father, her mother received family pension from State Bank of India, Rampur District Shimla, till 9/7/2001 i.e. till her death. The Finance Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued office memorandum dtd. 14/10/2009 Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, the definition of the family in clause 8.4 was now to include unmarried daughter also for the purpose of grant of family pension. After coming into force the said office memorandum, according to the petitioner, she was entitled to receive the family pension yet despite having communicated with respondent No.2 in this regard, as no family pension has been released in her favour, therefore, it is in these circumstances, that the present petition has been filed seeking the relief already referred to hereinabove.

(3.) The petition has been resisted by respondents No.1,3 and 4 primarily on the ground that deceased father of the petitioner being employee of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has nothing to do with the case. Respondent No.3 has taken the stand that it has not received any communication or information from respondent No.2 with regard to release the family pension as has been claimed by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 in its reply has taken the stand that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief being prayed for inter alia on the ground that though issuance of the instructions being relied upon by the petitioner are not disputed but the petitioner never took up the matter with the concerned Authority after the issuance of instructions Annexure A-1 and she arose from her slumber only in the year 2017 and since all the documents pertaining to late Joban Dass stand weeded out, therefore, respondent No.2 is not in a position to issue family pension in favour of the petitioner. It is further the stand of the said respondent that the petition is barred by delay and latches .