Smt.Prema Devi vs District Inspector Of Schools ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 6268 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 17								AFR
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1863 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt.Prema Devi
 
Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools Faizabad
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.L.Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Km. Kirti Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay family pension to the petitioner regularly along with arrears since 1993 along with other dues with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the due amount of pension and other benefits.

The facts in brief for deciding the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner late Brij Lal was a Class-IV employee in R.D. Inter College, Suchitaganj, Faizabad. He was serving as regular employee in the institution since 24.08.1970. The Institution was recognized from U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad and was in the list of grant-in-aid schools under the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The husband of the petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation and the pension was sanctioned to him in accordance with Rules. The husband of the petitioner was died on 24.01.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed for family pension in accordance with Rules. The application of the petitioner for family pension has not been disposed of by the authorities though the application given in the institution for grant of family pension was forwarded by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad by his letter dated 04.03.1993 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). When the aforesaid application has not been disposed of, the present writ petition has been filed.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it has been contended that for providing the facility of family pension to non-teaching staff of grant-in-aid institutions vide G.O. dated 24.02.1989 was made effective with effect from 01.01.1989. Therefore, the petitioner being the wife of a non-teaching staff, who retired from services on 31.12.1988 cannot be extended the said benefit of family pension.

Copy of the aforesaid Government Order dated 24.02.1989 has been placed before this Court by learned Standing Counsel.

So far as, the applicability of the Government Order dated 24.02.1989 is concerned, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said Government Order is relevant. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinunder:

"3& ;g ;kstuk fnukad 1 tuojh] 1989 ls ykxw ekuh tk;sxhA

4& mi;qZDr ;kstuk dk iz'kklu fuEufyf[kr izdkj ls gksxk %&

¼d½& ifjokj isa'ku lsok esa jgrs gq, ;k lsokfuo`fRr ds ckn eqR;q gksus ij ml n'kk esa vuqeU; gksxh tc lsokfuo`fRr ds ckn e`R;q gksus dh n'kk esa deZpkjh e`R;q ds le; dksbZ izfrdj v'kDrrk lsokfuo`fRr ;k vf/ko"kZ isa'ku ik jgk gks ;k jgk gksrk vkSj lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus dh n'kk esa ;fn mlus de ls de ,d o"kZ dh yxkrkj lsok] ftlesa HkRrk jfgr NqV~Vh dh vof/k] M~;wVh ds :i esa u ekuk x;k fuyEcu rFkk 20 o"kZ dh vk;q ls igys dh xbZ vof/k lfEefyr ugha gS] iwjh dj yh gksA

¼[k½& bl ;kstuk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, ifjokj esa f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh ds fuEufyf[kr lEcU/kh lfEefyr jgsaxs %&

¼1½& [email protected]

¼2½& vo;Ld iq=

¼3½& vfookfgr vo;Ld iqf=;kaA

fVIi.kh%& ¼1½& mi;qZDr ¼2½ vkSj ¼3½ esa lsokfuo`fRr ls igys oS/k :i ls xksn yh xbZ lUrku Hkh lfEefyr gksxhA

fVIi.kh%& ¼2½& lsokfuo`fRr ds ckn fd;k x;k fookg bl ;kstuk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, ekU; ugha le>k tk;sxkA

¼x½& isa'ku fuEufyf[kr n'kkvksa esa miyC/k gksxh %&

¼1½& fo/[email protected]/kqj dh n'kk esa e`R;q ;k iqufoZokg] tks Hkh igys gks] ds fnukad rdA

¼2½& vo;Ld iq= dh n'kk esa tc rd fd mldh vk;q 21 o"kZ dh u gks tk;sA

¼3½& vfookfgr iq=h dh n'kk esa tc rd fd mldh 24 o"kZ dh vk;q ;k fookg] tks Hkh igys gks] u gks tk;A

fVIi.kh%& tgka nks ;k nks ls vf/kd fo/kok;sa gksa rks isa'ku T;s"Bre mRrjthoh fo/kok dks ns; gksxhA mldh e`R;[email protected] gksus ij ;g isa'ku vxyh mRrjthoh fo/kok] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ns; gksxhA 'kCn T;s"Bre dk rkRi;Z fookg ds fnukad ds funsZ'k ofj"Brk ls gSA

¼?k½& bl ;kstuk ds v/khu nh xbZ isa'ku ,d gh le; esa deZpkjh ds ifjokj ds ,d ls vf/kd lnL;ksa dks ns; ugha gksxhA ;g fuEufyf[kr dze ls vuqeU; gksxh vFkkZr igys fo/[email protected]/kqj dks] mlds ckn T;s"Bre mRrjthoh vo;Ld iq= dks vkSj rRi'pkr mRrjthoh vfookfgr vo;Ld iq=h dksA

¼³½& fo/[email protected]/kqj dk [email protected];q gks tkus ij isa'ku muds vo;Ld lUrkuksa dks muds izd`r vfHkHkkodksa ds ek/;e ls gh nh tk;sxh fdUrq fooknkLin ekeykssa esa Hkqxrku fof/kd vfHkHkkod ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA"

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee who was getting pension after his retirement. It is also not in dispute that being the wife of the deceased employee, she is entitled to the benefit of family pension. It is also not denied that husband of the petitioner was entitled to get pension from 01.01.1989 and he was being paid pension from 01.01.1989 till he died after the retirement. Therefore, the present case falls within the category of clause 4 of the said scheme and the petitioner being the wife of the deceased is entitled to family pension.

None consideration of her request for about two decades by the authorities concerned is the glaring example of inaction of the State functionaries which should be deprecated and this Court take a serious note of this thing.

It is also a matter of great concern that this Court could not able to decide this lis which has been filed about a decade before in 2002 for the laches of the system. This requires to be considered by the High Court in its administrative side to improve the system to decide the cases expeditiously.

As the petitioner was not given her due for which she was entitled at the time of death of her husband in 1993, hence this Court has no hesitation to pass an stringent order.

It would not be proper at this stage and that too after expiry of about 20 years to sent the matter back to decide the same by the authorities concerned when this Court is satisfied that petitioner is entitled to get family pension in terms of Government Order dated 24.02.1989. Hence, in view of the fact of this case and finding it that the petitioner is entitled to family pension, this petition deserves to be allowed with costs.

The writ petition is allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.25000/- by the State Government. The State Government would be at liberty to recover the amount of costs from the person who is found responsible for the same.

A mandamus is issued against the opposite parties to pay family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband with current family pension positively within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order on month to month basis without any fail. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the arrears of pension within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner i.e. 24.01.1993 till the arrears are actually paid.

In case, the arrears of family pension and current pension is not paid within the time granted by this Court the rate of interest shall be 9% p.a. from the date of order till the final payment is made in terms of the order of this Court.

Order Date :- 4.10.2013

akverma