Vidhu Rani vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1566 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26371 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Vidhu Rani
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandravir Singh Raghuvanshi,Vishal Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jitendra Kumar,Prasoon Tomar,Prem Prakash Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Shri Prasoon Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 to release the arrears of family pension to the petitioner due since June 2017 till date alongwith 12 % interest and month to month pension regularly.

The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner is widowed daughter of late Shri Raghunath Singh, who died while working as Principal at Primary School Govindpur (Budhanpur), Bijnor, on 22.7.1983, leaving behind his two unmarried sons namely, Mahendra Pratap Singh and Chandradeep Singh and two unmarried daughters, namely, Vidhu Rani (petitioner) and Purnima and his widow, Smt. Dulari.The family pension was granted to the widow of the deceased ,namely, Smt. Dulari after the death of Raghunath Singh.The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Arvind Singh, who died on 22.10.1989 and since then petitioner was living with her mother and brothers.Her mother, Smt. Dulari died on 13.4.2015.After the death of her mother petitioner applied for grant of family pension as per Government Order dated 6.11.2013 and submitted the requisite documents in support of her application and the respondent no3., District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor granted her basic family pension of Rs. 1616/- till 30.4.2015 plus compensation by directing the respondent no.4,Senior Treasury Officer, District Bijnor in this regard.

On account of complaint made by one Ram Singh, Samaj Sewak, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor, the family pension of the petitioner was stopped and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 informed the petitioner that on account of aforesaid complaint the record of her family pension has been summoned. She has made allegations of corruption against the respondent No.5, Mehar Singh, Clerk in the District Treasury.Despite number of applications to the respondent nos.3 and 4, when the family pension of the petitioner was not released she has approached this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no person named Ram Singh,Samaj Sewak in Tehsil Dhampur and some forged complaint was made against the petitioner disputing grant of family pension to her and on its basis family pension of the petitioner was stopped.

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor, wherein it has been admitted that the family pension was granted to widow of Raghu Nath Singh on 1.12.2012. It has further been stated that in the complaint received it has been stated petitioner has to major brothers. The entitlement of the petitioner for family pension as per Government Order dated 16.9.2009 has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that her mother was getting pension and after her death petitioner was paid family pension from 1.5.2015 to 31.5.2017 but later on account of complaint it has been stopped.It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's name finds place in the list of the family members of her husband Arvind Singh and also in the list of family members of her mother Smt. Dulari.Petitioner was asked to submit dependency certificate by letter dated 10.10.2018, which has not been submitted by her .Her mother Smt. Dulari, nominated her son Chandradeep Singh to get her remaining dues after her death. It has further been stated that apart from complaint from Ram Singh, complaints were also received from Promod Kumar son of Nirjan Singh and K.P. Singh of U.P. Sewanrivtra Pension Association, Bijnor that the petitioner is wrongly getting pension.

Another counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.5, Mehar Singh, clerk in the office of District Treasury , District Bijnor against whom allegations of demand of illegal gratification have been made by the petitioner in the petition.

In the counter affidavit of respondent no.5, averments in the writ petition have been denied and same objection regarding non submission of dependency certificate by the petitioner to the respondent no.3 has been reiterated. It has been denied that respondent no.5 ever made any illegal demand from the petitioner for sanctioning family pension to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit stating that petitioner has already filed her dependency certificate before respondent no.3 twice but she has been directed to file the same again issued by the competent court/authority.

After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that earlier family pension was granted to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 by the letter dated 2.2.2016 sent to the respondent no.4.Alleging receipt of some complaint from some Ram Singh, Samaj Sewak,Dhampur, Bijnor the family pension of the petitioner has been stopped since June 2017.The respondents have not brought on record any inquiry report regarding the complaints received from Ram Singh or any other person as to what was found against the petitioner, which compelled them to stop the family pension of the petitioner already sanctioned on 2.2.2016. Only on the basis of receiving some complaint, whereon admittedly no inquiry has been conducted nor anything adverse against the petitioner has been found, the family pension of the petitioner could not have been stopped. For passing the order of stoppage of family pension,there was no definite material against the petitioner and for last about five years she is not being paid family pension. It is not disputed that she is not the daughter of the deceaseds,, Raghunath Singh and his wife Smt. Dulari.It is also not disputed that she is widow of Arvind Singh and was residing with her mother and brothers after untimely death of he husband after her five years of marriage with him.The respondents have failed to convince the court that anything has been found against the petitioner.None of her brothers and sisters have raised any objection to the payment of family pension to the petitioner. In the order dated 2.2.2016 of the District Basic Education Officer (annexure-2 to the petition) it is clear that the petitioner submitted her dependency certificate earlier before the respondent no.3 and on its basis pension was granted to her.The family pension of the petitioner has been stopped without any order in writing by the respondents when it was granted by written order dated 2.2.2013 passed by the respondent no.3.

In view of the above respondent no.4, Senior Treasury Officer, Bijnor is directed by means of a positive mandamus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India, etc. Vs. K.S. Jagannatha, (1986)2, SCC 679, to make payment of arrears of family pension to the petitioner from June 2017 till date with 9 % simple interest per annum within three weeks from today and pay her month to month pension with effect from 1.5.2022 regularly.

It is made clear that if the arrears of the family pension of the petitioner are not paid within the time provided by this court, respondent no.4 would be liable to pay 12% interest on the arrears of pension.The State Government would be free to recover entire interest on the arrears of family pension of the petitioner from the respondent no.4, in case he fails to comply this order in time.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 27.4.2022

Atul kr. sri.