Laxmi Rana vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 3117 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Laxmi Rana vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 February, 2024

Author: Neeraj Tiwari

Bench: Neeraj Tiwari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19356
 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19972 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Laxmi Rana
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.R. Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh,Vimlesh Kumar Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
 

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for petitioner and supplementary affidavit filed by Sri V.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 be taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for State-respondents and Sri V.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

3. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"i). Issue a writ, order or direction of certiorari quashing order, impugned, dated 04.11.2023 to the extent it relates to contents of paragraph No. 4, whereby outstanding retirement dues of the husband of petitioner has been calculated/awarded with effect from 01.01.2023, fallen due on 28.05.2005.

ii). Issue a writ, order or direction of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure payment of gratuity, group insurance, and other outstanding retirement dues of the late husband of petitioner along with arrears of the family pension with effect from 28.05.2005 with panel interest @ 12%, per annum revising and recalculating the family pension.

iii). Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents to insure payment of all retirement dues of the late husband of petitioner with effect from 28.05.2005, compensating her with cost of Rs. 1 lack, spent in filing of repeated petitions and knocking doors of the respondents."

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that husband of petitioner was working on the post of Cook and he died in harness on 28.08.2005. After his death, being her wife, petitioner has submitted an application dated 05.12.2005 for appointment on compassionate ground and also for terminal dues, upon which, she was granted appointment, but no terminal dues has been paid to her.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that for redressal of her grievance, petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 19540 of 2022 (Laxmi Rana vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), which was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2022 with direction to the petitioner to complete all required formalities for payment of terminal dues. Pursuant to that, petitioner has completed formalities, upon which, vide impugned order dated 04.11.2023, petitioner was denied for giving family pension from the date of application relying upon the Rule 930 of Civil Service Regulations and also denied for interest. She next submitted that it is the liability and responsibility of respondent-authorities to provide terminal dues to the petitioner at the earliest immediate after death of husband of petitioner, for which, petitioner has already submitted application dated 05.12.2005. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of S.K. Mastan Bee vs. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Civil Appeal No. 8089 of 2002 (arising out of SLP @ No. 18565 of 2001) decided on 04.12.2002.

6. Per contra, Sri V.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vehemently opposed the submissions of counsel for petitioner and submitted that petitioner has completed formalities of family pension only after order of Court and prior to that, she has never completed formalities, therefore, respondent-authorities were not in a position to provide pension. Further, as per Rule 930 of Civil Service Regulations, petitioner is entitled for pension only from the date of application and not prior to that, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

7. In his rejoinder argument, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that similar issue was before the Apex Court in the matter of S.K. Mastan Bee (Supra) and Rules were also same, but Apex Court opined that it is the responsibility of the respondents-authorities to provide terminal dues immediate after the death.

8. I have considered rival submissions advanced by counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgment cited above.

9. The question before this Court is that as to whether petitioner is entitled for terminal dues from the date of death or from the date of submission of application in light of Rule 930 of Civil Service Regulations read with judgment of Apex Court in the matter of S.K. Mastan Bee (Supra).

10. For ready reference, Rule 930 of Civil Service Regulations is quoted below:-

"930. A part from special orders, a pension, other than a Wound or Extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, is payable from the date on which the pensioner ceased to be borne on the establishment, or from the date of his application, whichever is later. The object of this later alternative is to prevent unnecessary delay in the submission of applications. The rule may be relaxed, in this particular, by the authority sanctioning the pension which the delay is sufficiently explained.

1. The pension of an officer who under Article 426, has received a gratuity in lieu of notice is not payable for the period in respect of which the gratuity is paid.

Decisions of the State Government

Under Article 907 read with Articles 911, 914, 917(a) (ii) and 930, a pension is to be sanctioned only on receipt of a formal application from the Government servant concerned. In spite of the specific provisions of Article 907, according to which formal application for pension has to be made one year in advance of the date of actual or anticipated retirement, cases have occurred in which Government servants have died shortly after retirement without having formally applied for pension. It has been decided that in such cases the authority competent to sanction a pension to the deceased Government servant, had he made a formal application before death, may relax the provisions of the articles referred to above, and sanction of pension and/or gratuity to the Government servant from the date of retirement up to and inclusive of the date of his death as if he had made a formal application for the same before retirement, provided that the time lag between retirement and death does not exceed six months. Cases in which the time lag exceeds six months, should he referred to Government for decision. A pension and/or gratuity sanctioned in accordance with this order may be paid to the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the existing provisions of the rules."

11. From the perusal of Rule 930 of Civil Service Regulations, it is apparently clear that the said rule provides retiral dues from the date of submission of application and in case of delay of terminal dues, there is provision for relaxation and by that way heirs of deceased may be entitled for terminal dues from the date of death irrespective date of submission of application.

12. I have also perused the judgement of Apex Court passed in S.K. Mastan Bee (Supra) and relevant paragraph is quoted below:-

"We notice that the appellant's husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension and to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband's employer, viz., Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellant's lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. Question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellate Bench was justified in restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of appellant's husband on which date she had legally become entitled to the grant of pension ? In this case as noticed by us herein above, the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of delay put forth by the Railways and taking note of the appellant's right to pension and the denial of the same by the Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect from the date on which it became due to her. The Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned Single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for the grant of family pension was not fatal inspite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from a date on which the appellant issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 1.4.1992. We think on the facts of this case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1.4.1992."

13. Apex Court, after considering in detail about the Rule pari materia to Rule 930 of Civil Service Regulations, has held that heirs of deceased shall be entitled for the terminal dues from due date i.e. date of death.

14. Present controversy is also squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of S.K. Mastan Bee (Supra). In light of that, interpretation of Rule 930 would be that petitioner shall also be entitled for pension from date of death and not from the date of submission of application form.

15. So far as interest part is concerned, there is dispute between the parties about the date of submission of application form. From the perusal of order dated 28.11.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 19540 of 2022, it appears that formalities for payment of pension has been completed only after order of Court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant interest.

16. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

17. Impugned order dated 04.11.2023 is modified to the extent that petitioner shall not be denied for payment of pension from due date i.e. date of death of her husband to the date of application. Further, respondent No. 4-Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Hardoi is directed to recalculate the pension of petitioner from 28.08.2005 in place of 31.12.2022 and pay arrears of pension within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 5.2.2024

Sartaj