Premlata Devi vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. Deptt. ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3137 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 23.01.2018
 
Delivered on 09.10.2018
 
Court No. - 34
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 861 of 2009
 

 
Appellant :- Premlata Devi (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs)
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and others 
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Preetpal Singh Rathore
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K. Shahi,S.K.Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Preetpal Singh Rathore, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment dated 21.05.2009 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 72162 of 2005 filed by Smt. Premlata Devi, widow of (Late) Nanhey Mal Srivastava.

3. We may place on record that petitioner-appellant, Smt. Prem Lata, has also expired during pendency of appeal and substituted by legal heirs. This appeal is now being prosecuted by legal representatives of appellant.

4. Facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are as under.

5. Nanhey Mal Srivastava, husband of Original Appellant, Premlata Devi, was Head Master at Primary School, Chandpur, Farrukhabad. After attaining age of superannuation he retired on 30.06.1976. After retirement, he received pension and later died on 03.05.1984. Thereafter, petitioner-appellant Smt. Premlata Devi (now deceased) applied for family pension. It was forwarded to Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as "FAO, BE"). Vide letter dated 06.02.1996, FAO, BE raised an objection that family pension is payable upto the age of 65 years or 7 years but since in the present case, original appellant has completed both the conditions, therefore as per new pension scheme, only on payment of contribution of Provident Fund, new scheme can be made applicable. District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as "DBEO") vide letter dated 08.02.1996 required appellant to submit new pension scheme option form and after inquiring about the amount of contribution, deposit the same and submit challan through Deputy Inspector of Schools for further action for payment of family pension. Vide letter dated 10.04.1996, DBEO approved family pension to Smt. Premlata Srivastava (now deceased) from 04.05.1984 to 31.12.1985 at Rs. 60/- plus dearness allowance per month and from 01.01.1986, Rs. 238/- plus dearness allowance per month. It also provided that contribution payable by original appellant towards fund shall be adjusted from arrears.

6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of family pension approved by DBEO, Original Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9104 of 1997 seeking following reliefs:

"1. a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to refix the family pension of the petitioner as on 04.05.1984 at the rate of Rs. 81/- per month (plus dearness allowance) at the rate of Rs. 284/- per month as on 01.01.1986 (plus dearness allowance payable thereon) and at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month as on 1.04.1990 (alongwith dearness allowance payable thereon) within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court and to further command the respondents to make regular payment of family pension to the petitioner in accordance with such fixation.

2- a writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to disburse the arrears of the family pension of the petitioner in accordance with Rule from 04.05.1984 till date within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court alongwith interest payable thereon at penal rate of interest till the date of actual payment within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

7. The writ petition was disposed of by a short order dated 14.03.1997 passed by this Court which reads as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The respondents are directed to give pension to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."

8. Thereafter, another order was passed by DBEO on 16.07.1997 stating that new pension scheme as per Government Order (hereinafter referred to as "G.O.") dated 08.03.1978 was admissible to those who retired on and after 01.03.1977 and since original appellant's husband retired on 30.06.1976, therefore, it was not admissible to her and consequently, issued direction for recovery of amount already paid to Original Appellant.

9. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 32294 of 1997 wherein initially an interim order was passed on 26.09.1997 restraining respondents from recovering the amount already paid to appellant. Finally writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.03.2005 holding that order passed by DEBO is unreasoned one and therefore he was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Original Appellant, however, preferred Special Appeal (Def.) No. 298 of 2005 but judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2005 was confirmed and Special Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench vide judgment dated 19.05.2005.

10. Original Appellant, then moved a representation dated 08.06.2005 before DBEO pursuant whereto she received an order dated 12.09.2005 whereby Original Appellant's representation was rejected and it was held that claim of family pension was not in accordance with applicable provisions.

11. In Writ Petition No. 72162 of 2005, before learned Single Judge, respondents filed counter affidavit contesting claim of original appellant stating that her husband Nanhey Mal Srivastava, after attaining the age of 60 years, retired on 30.06.1976 from the post of Head Master. He was entitled for pensionary benefits under Triple Benefit Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "TBS"). He died on 03.05.1984 and till that date pension under TBS was allowed. Under the aforesaid scheme family pension was payable only for a period of ten years and the same was made admissible to Original Appellant for a period of slightly more than ten years. As per G.O. dated 08.03.1978 and Rule 49 to 51 of Rules governing service conditions of teacher of schools, run and managed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, benefit under TBS was admissible to a Teacher upto the age of 65 years or 10 years, whichever is earlier, and according to that family pension benefit was given to Original Appellant. She was paid family pension from 04.05.1984 to 31.03.1997 which is a period, more than ten years. Under G.O. dated 17.11.1999, those who are entitled for family pension under TBS are not entitled for life long family pension. The claim of Original Appellant for minimum family pension of Rs. 375/- was also not found consistent with G.O. dated 27.06.1990. Original Appellant claimed 30 per cent family pension under G.O. dated 31.03.1982 but the said G.O. was in continuance of G.O. dated 08.03.1978 wherein new pension scheme was admissible only to such Teachers and non teaching staff, who retired on or after 01.03.1977 hence it was not payable to Original Appellant since her husband died on 30.06.1976. Original Appellant also filed rejoinder affidavit and then we find that there is a supplementary counter affidavit as also a supplementary rejoinder affidavit and relevant pleadings therefrom we would refer, while discussing the matter on merits.

12. Learned Single Judge following a decision of this Court in Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 27338 of 2005) decided on 17.08.2005 and observing that Original Appellant was not entitled for relief, dismissed writ petition. However, it has been provided that amount of pension, already paid to petitioner, shall not be recovered and to that extent some relief has been granted.

13. Sri Preetpal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for appellant, contended that pension and family pension is not a bounty but a right earned by an employee after rendering prescribed length of service and, therefore, cannot be denied to appellant on irrelevant and illegal considerations. He submitted that his matter is covered by several judgments of this Court which have not been considered properly by learned Single Judge and in this regard refers to judgment dated 03.09.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 5594 of 1993 (Smt. Shanti Devi Tiwari Vs. Basic Education Board); dated 20.11.1987 in Writ Petition No. 39477 of 1999 (Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State); dated 22.01.2002 in Writ Petition No. 39567 of 2001 (Musammat Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. and others)= 2002 (46) ALR 768; dated 15.03.2005 in Writ Petition No. 39654 of 2003 (Smt. Raeesa Bano Vs. State of U.P.) which was also confirmed in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 374 of 2005 dismissed on 09.06.2005; and dated 09.09.1991 in Writ Petition No. 17580 of 1998 (Smt. Machhlawati Vs. State of U.P).

14. It is further argued that cut off date in relevant G.O. conferring benefit thereunder to employees retired on a particular date and thereafter, even otherwise, is arbitrary and for this purpose placed reliance on D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, Devaki Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others (1983) 4 SCC 20, Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1984 SC 1905, Smt. Poonamal and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1985 SC 1196, judgment dated 23.12.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 47883 of 2004 (Smt. Madhu Rani Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others), judgment dated 27.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 48874 of 2005 (Nargis Bano Vs. State of U.P. and others), Smt. Madhavi Devi Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others 2005 (106) FLR 182, State of U.P. and others Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari and others 2015 (1) ECS 171 (All) (DB), State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another (1987) 2 SCC 179.

15. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that pensionary benefits, though a right and not a bounty, but is governed by Scheme of Rules and not to be paid on the mere asking or as per desire of retired employee or his family. In the present case, pensionary benefits have been made available to appellant's husband as per the relevant provisions and family pension was also payable to appellant only in accordance with relevant provisions and not otherwise. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed writ petition.

16. We have considered rival submissions and relevant provisions.

17. For teaching staff of Primary Schools, Junior High Schools, Secondary Schools etc. a scheme termed as TBS was made applicable from 01.10.1964 vide G.O. dated 17.12.1965. Three benefits under the aforesaid Scheme were, (1) Contributory Provident Fund, (2) Compulsory Insurance Scheme, and, (3) Pension including Family Pension. Clause 24 thereof provided that family pension shall be payable for a maximum period of 5 years when the concerned employee attained the age of superannuation. Thereafter U.P. Basic Education Provident Fund Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "PF Rules, 1975") were promulgated to deal with the matter of provident fund.

18. Retired teachers of Primary Schools and Junior High Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board made a demand that amount of pensionary benefits, they are getting is meager and they should be allowed retiral benefits at the same rates as admissible to State Government employees. Accepting aforesaid demand, G.O. dated 08.03.1978 was issued which provided that those Teachers who retired on and after 01.03.1977 shall be paid pension at the same rate as admissible to similarly placed teaching staff of Government Schools. TBS implemented by G.O. dated 17.12.1965 was consequently amended to said extent. The aforesaid G.O. dated 08.03.1978 allowed benefit of pension subject to certain conditions and one of such condition was that Teachers shall not be entitled for death-cum-retirement gratuity or family pension to the dependents after death of Teacher. This condition of denial of family pension subsequently was revoked by G.O. dated 31.03.1982 and it allowed benefit of family pension also, at par, with similarly placed Teachers of Government Schools with effect from 01.10.1981. The aforesaid grant of family pension was also subject to certain conditions contained in para 3 and 4 of the said G.O. and relevant para 4 thereof is reproduced as under:

^^4- ¼d½ lsokjr jgrs gq, e`R;q gks tkus dh n'kk esa ;fn e`rd us de ls de lkr o"kZ dh vfojy lsok iznku dh gS rks e`R;q dh frfFk ls izkjafHkd lkr o"kZ ;k ml frfFk rd tc mlus thfor jgus dh n'kk esa 65 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dh yh gksrh] tks Hkh igys lekIr gks] ikfjokfjd issa'ku ewy osru dh vk/kh vFkok bl ;kstuk ds v/khu vU;Fkk ns; /kujkf'k dk nqxquk] tks Hkh de gks] ds cjkcj ns; gksxhA

¼[k½ lsok fuo`fRr ds mijkUr e`R;q gks tkus dh n'kk esa c<+h gqbZ nj ij ikfjokfjd isa'ku ml frfFk rd tc e`r isa'kuj thfor jgus dh n'kk esa 65 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj ysrk vFkok 7 o"kZ dh vof/k] tks bu nksuksa vof/k;ksa esa ls igys gks] bl izfrcU/k ds v/khu ns; gksxh fd ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh /kujkf'k fdlh Hkh n'kk esa lsokfuo`fRr ds ckn f'k{kd dh Lohd`r dh xbZ lsok isa'ku dh /kujkf'k ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA vxzsrj izfrcU/k ;g Hkh gS fd ekeyks esa izLrj&1 ds vUrxZr ns; ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh /kujkf'k lsokfuo`fRr ij Lohd`r dh xbZ lsok isa'ku dh /kujkf'k ml /kujkf'k ls de ugha gksxhA lsokfuo`fRr ds le; Lohdkj dh xbZ isa'ku ls rkRi;Z ml isa'ku ls gS] tks isa'kuj dks ewyr% Lohd`r gqbZ gks] vFkkZr~ isa'ku dh og /kujkf'k tks jkf'kdj.k ls iwoZ] ;fn dksbZ gks] Lohd`r dh xbZ FkhA^^

"4. (a) In case of dying in harness, if the deceased has rendered a minimum 7 years of continuous service, the family pension, for the first 7 years from the date of death or till the date of attaining 65 years had he survived, whichever is earlier, shall be payable equal to the half of the basic pay or double of the amount otherwise payable under this scheme, whichever is less.

(b) In case of death after retirement, the family pension at enhanced rate shall be payable upto the date when the deceased pensioner would have attained 65 years of age had he survived or upto 7 years, whichever is earlier; provided that the amount of family pension shall not be, in any case, more than the service pension of the teacher sanctioned after retirement. It is further provided that in these cases, the amount of family pension payable under para 1 shall not be less than the amount of service pension sanctioned at the time of retirement. The pension sanctioned at the time of retirement means the pension which would have been initially sanctioned for the pensioner, that is, the amount of pension, if any, which was sanctioned prior to commutation."

(Emphasis added)

(English Translation by Court)

19. Para 4(b) quoted above clearly shows, where a Teacher retired after attaining the age of superannuation and is entitled for pensionary benefits under TBS read with GOs. dated 08.03.1978 and 31.03.1982, on his death, his family shall be entitled for family pension but the period of such pension shall be till the deceased retired Teacher would have attained age of 65 years, if alive, and/or seven years whichever is earlier. In effect the period of family pension was considerably lesser inasmuch in 1978 and 1982 the age of retirement of Teachers was 58 years and, therefore, if after retirement a Teacher die at the age of 60 years or 61 years, family pension would have been admissible under the aforesaid GOs only for a period of 4 to 5 years and maximum period of 7 years for family pension would have been available only if Teacher die immediately on attaining the age of superannuation and not otherwise.

20. A clarification was sought by certain District Officers as to whether benefit of family pension as per G.O. dated 31.03.1982 shall also be admissible to Teachers who have died before 01.10.1081. G.O. dated 16.06.1984 was issued making it clear that irrespective of fact whether retired Teacher has died before 01.10.1981 or not, benefit of family pension shall be made available to family members, but there is no provision for payment of arrears since benefit under G.O. dated 31.03.1982 is applicable with effect from 01.10.1981.

21. In Mst. Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. (supra), husband of Sajida Begum after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the post of Teacher on 30.11.1972. He was paid pension during his life time. He died on 12.01.1994. Her claim for family pension was negated on the ground that family pension was payable vide G.O. dated 31.03.1982 with effect from 01.10.1981. The said scheme was made applicable to Teachers of Primary Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad who were working on 08.03.1978 though her husband retired on 03.11.1972, therefore, no family pension was payable. Learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.) relying on Supreme Court's judgment in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India (supra) held that family pension is payable to the members of family of deceased employee on his death and retirement is not relevant, therefore, classification of family members of a deceased employee in the matter of pension only on the ground of cut off date of issue of G.O. amounts to carving out a Class from amongst homogeneous class of family pension holder and it is not permissible and arbitrary.

22. The above judgment was followed by another Single Judge (Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.) in Smt. Bodari Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others 2003 (51) ALR 263. Husband of Smt. Bodari Shukla retired on 31.03.1983 and died on 23.08.2000. He was a non teaching employee of educational institution. By G.O. dated 24.02.1989 benefit of family pension was extended to teaching staff of educational institution with effect from 01.01.1989. By subsequent G.O. dated 26.11.1999, it was clarified that G.O. dated 24.02.1989 would be applicable only to those employees, who were in service on 01.01.1989. Learned Single Judge held that restriction of family pension under G.O. dated 24.02.1989 by covering only those persons who retired after 01.01.1989 and not to those who retired before that is arbitrary. Para-6 of the judgment reads as under:

"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that for the purpose of grant of family pension, the artificial classification made in the Government order by creating a cut off date and thus making two sets/ classes of employees merely on the basis of the date of retirement is discriminatory and cannot be justified, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Government order dated 26.11.1999 is thus quashed. It is held that the petitioner shall not be denied the benefit of family pension merely because the husband of the petitioner had retired prior to 1.1.1989."

23. The next authority in respect to claim of family pension of a retired and deceased Teacher's family is Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra). Chhiddan Bax, husband of Nathho Begum was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 08.07.1931 and attained age of superannuation on 13.04.1971 while working as Head Master, Primary School, Tursa Patti, Block Fatehpur and retired. He was paid pension under TBS till he died on 30.06.1986. Relying on judgment of Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. (supra) family pension was claimed but denied by the authorities, hence matter came up before learned Single Judge (Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.). Court examined entire scheme since beginning and observed that in order to provide better conditions of services to Teachers serving in the State aided institutions vide G.O. dated 17.12.1965, TBS was introduced with effect from 01.10.1964. The three benefits made available under the aforesaid G.O. were made available subject to the terms and conditions laid down in U.P. State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund Insurance-Pension Rules. Rule 24 thereof deals with "family pension" and shows that family pension not exceeding amount specified could be granted for a period of ten years to the family of a employee who dies either while still in service or after retirement after completion of not less than 20 years of qualifying service. Proviso to Rule 24 says that period of payment of family pension shall not, in any case, would extend beyond a period of five years from the date the deceased employee would have attained age of superannuation. Subsequently G.O. dated 08.03.1978 was issued in the light of demands raised by Teachers extending benefit of pensionary rights to Teachers in the same manner as it was applicable to State Government employees. This G.O. was made applicable to employees who retired on and after 01.03.1977. One more rider was imposed that such Teachers would not be entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits and after death no family pension would be admissible to their family members. Para-2 of G.O. dated 08.03.1978 required the employee to give an option whether he would opt for pension in the manner provided in G.O. dated 08.03.1978 or would continue to be Governed by G.O. dated 17.12.1965. Again there was a lot of disconcertment which resulted in G.O. dated 31.03.1982 and then further clarification dated 16.03.1984. Learned Single Judge held that case of Nathho Begum for family pension has to be considered in the light of various G.O.s and Rules and observed:

"In the light of these Rules and Government Order claim of petitioner is to be seen. Undisputed factual position and which is clear is to the effect that date of birth of husband of the petitioner has been 14.04.1911 and he attained the age of superannuation on 13.04.1971. Husband of the petitioner was paid his family pension till his death i.e. upto 30.06.1986 and thereafter as far as petitioner is concerned no amount whatsoever has been paid to her. Petitioner submits that in terms of Government Order she is entitled for family pension. At no point of time after new pension policy has been introduced by means of Government Order dated 08.03.1978 husband of the petitioner had ever opted for new pension policy and even otherwise there was no occasion for the husband of the petitioner to accept new pension policy, as he already stood superannuated whereas fact of the matter is that he was being paid his pension as per 1965 Rules and he received his pension till 30.06.1986 when he died. As per 1965 Rules, Rule 24 family pension was admissible to the family member for period of 10 years of an employee who died either while still in service or after retirement after completion of more than 20 years of service. Proviso to the said rule clearly contemplated that the period of payment of family pension shall in no case extend beyond period of five years from the date on which deceased employee would have attained the age of superannuation. Husband of the petitioner had attained his age of superannuation on 13.04.1971 and as such from the said date for the period of five years family pension could have been paid and not in any other contingency husband of the petitioner survived for more than 15 yeas, after attaining age of superannuation as such as per 1965 Rules claim of the petitioner for family pension is clearly unsustainable.

Claim of petitioner is being seen even in the light of Government Order dated 08.03.1978 as modified on 31.03.1982 and clarified on 16.06.1984 respectively. Even in terms of aforementioned Government Order claim of the petitioner is not sustainable. In terms of aforementioned Government Order dated 08.03.1978 as modified on 31.03.1982 family pension is admissible in the event when an incumbent dies in service and has put in 7 years of service then from the date of death till next seven years family pension is payable or till the date when incumbent would have attained age of 65 years. In the event in case death has taken place after retirement then family member were entitled for family pension till the date employee would have attained the age of 65 years or for 7 years whichever was earlier. Here at the time of his death employee was more than seventy five years of age and had been drawing his pension and as such family pension was not at all admissible to his family members in terms of paragraph-4(a) and 4(b) of Government Order dated 31.03.1982."

24. Learned Single Judge also considered judgment in Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. (supra) but observed that relevant G.O. were not taken into consideration in the said judgment.

25. Decision in Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) has been concurred by another Single Judge (Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.) in Writ Petition No. 21326 of 2003 (Smt. Prakashwati Deve Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 28.07.2006. Therein husband of Smt. Prakaswati Devi was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 07.02.1973 and died on 20.12.1975. Learned Single Judge held that after rendering only about two years service no pensionary benefits were admissible since the same has to be governed by Rules and cannot be claimed outside thereof and in this regard reliance was placed on the judgment in Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra).

26. A Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 391 of 2007 (Smt. Sahba Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 08.07.2016 has also expressed agreement with the judgment in Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) that the claim of pension is to be seen in the light of Rules and not beyond that.

27. Judgment in Smt. Madhu Rani Gupta Vs. State of U.P. (supra) relied on by appellant relates to Secondary Educational institution, namely, Maharaj Agrasen Inter College, Moradabad. Husband of Smt. Madhu Rani Gupta was an Assistant Teacher working in Primary Section attached with the Secondary Educational Institution. He died on 16.11.1992. In the matter of considering family pension, Management's contribution was deposited on 09.01.1997 but claim of family pension was rejected by order dated 23.10.2004 holding that as per G.O. dated 28.01.2004 family pension was admissible only to dependents of those who attained the age of superannuation after 28.01.2004. Since husband of Smt. Madhu Rani Gupta had died on 17.11.1992, family pension was denied. This cut off date of 28.01.2004 was challenged before learned Single Judge (Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.) as arbitrary. Relevant Extract of G.O. dated 28.01.2004 reads as under:

^^mi;ZqDr fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ls lEc) izkbejh izHkkx] [email protected] ckfydk ds f'k{[email protected] f'kf{kdkvksa dks] lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds f'k{kdksa dh Hkkafr lsokfuo`fRr dk YkkHk ;Fkk%& isa'ku] ikfjokfjd isa'ku] xzsP;qVh o th0ih0,Q0 dh lqfo/kk dk ykHk fn;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky egksn; lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrsa gSaA

2& ;g lsokfuo`fRr f'k{kd ykHk vkns'k fuxZru dh frfFk ls vFkok mlds mijkUr lsokfuo`fRr gksus okys f'k{kd dks gh vuqeU; gksxh rFkk issa'ku gsrq vgZdkjh lsok ogh ekuh tk;sxh ftl vof/k ds fy, lacaf/kr f'k{kd dk lh0ih0,[email protected],Q0 va'knkj dVk gksA^^

"In context of the aforesaid subject, I am directed to say that His Excellency the Governor has been pleased to accord assent to extending the facility of retiral benefits: such as, pension, family pension, gratuity and GPF to the teachers of the primary division affiliated with the aided non-government higher secondary schools in line with the teachers of the aided secondary schools.

2. This retiral benefit, admissible to the teachers, shall be admissible from the date of issuance of this order or only to the teachers retiring thereafter; and the period for which the CPF/ GPF contribution of the concerned teacher was deducted shall constitute the period of qualifying service for such pension."

(English Translation by Court)

28. The aforesaid G.O. was in respect to Secondary Educational Institution considering cases were primary sections were attached with such institution. The only question up for consideration was whether extension of benefit under G.O. dated 28.01.2004 is only to the Teachers who retired after enforcement of said G.O. and applying the same to those who retired earlier thereto, was justified or not. This Court considered and held, when benefit of family pension, gratuity, general provident fund was made admissible, denial of same to those who retired before 28.01.2004 is based on no logic or rationality. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the case in hand where issue is regarding period of entitlement of family pension. This period is restricted and applicable to all without carving out any classification, and, therefore, cannot be said to be per se arbitrary.

29. In the present case, learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the decision in Musammat Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. (supra) and followed decision in Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra).

30. In view thereof, we find no reason to take a different view in the matter. The view taken by learned Single Judge, in our view, is perfectly correct and warrants no interference.

31. The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed.

Dt. 09.10.2018

PS