Delhi High Court
Smt. Dayawati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 May, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.2725/2012
Smt. Dayawati ... Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Hooda, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. This a petition by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated
12th June, 2008 declining family pension to the petitioner and for a
direction to the respondents to restore the ordinary family pension
w.e.f. July, 2008 and also to pay arrears along with interest thereon.
2. By order dated 12th June, 2008, the respondents had held that in
view of the decision passed by this Court in WP(C) 5815/2001, titled as
„Dayawati v. Union of India & Ors.‟ which decision has been upheld by
the Supreme Court by decision dated 30th January, 2001 in Rakesh
Kumar (supra) holding that under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, a member of BSF who resigns from his post after completing
more than 10 years of service but less than 20 years, would not be
eligible to get pensionary benefits, and consequently, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by Learned Single Judge of
this Court.
3. The order dated 12th June, 2008 further disclosed that the
Supreme Court in another decision dated 4th January, 2006 had held
that the persons who had retired in 1996 and who were sanctioned
pension but who could not be re-inducted i.e. they had become overage
or physically or medically unfit or for any other reason they were unable
to return GPF, pension drawn or other dues shall not be recovered from
them. Consequently, the respondents passed the order dated 12th June,
2008 holding that the petitioner shall not be entitled for pension
anymore and the amount of pension already paid will not be recovered
from her.
4. The petitioner has sought pension on the ground that at the time
of restoration of ordinary family pension all the points were considered
and adjudicated, and consequently, the decision of the respondents
cannot be re-opened and the petitioner is not entitled for ordinary
family pension.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out the decision
in LPA No.75/2002, titled as „Dayawati v. Union of India & Ors., dated
29th February, 2008 dismissing the Latest Patent Appeal of the
petitioner and upholding the decision of the Learned Single Judge
declining the ordinary family pension to the petitioner have become
final and cannot be re-agitated in present petition. While dismissing the
LPA, the Division Bench of this Court in para 4 had held as under:
"4. The appellant herein is the widow of the deceased
Shri Ram Avtar Singh, who had only 13 years of service to
his credit. Her husband was not entitled to pensionary
benefit on completion of 13 years of service. Resignation of
the husband of the appellant was accepted by the
respondent-BSF effective from 1st September, 1996 by
which date he did not complete 20 years of service.
However, under a misconception of law, the respondent -
BSF gave pension to the husband of the appellant and after
his death to his wife, who is the present appellant. In view
of the aforesaid law now laid down by the Supreme Court,
they have stopped making payment of further pension, but
it is categorically stated before us by the counsel for the
respondents that whatever amount has since been paid to
the widow or to her husband by way of pension under
misconception of law, would not be recovered by the
respondents. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this
appeal has no merit and is dismissed."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any cogent
reason as to why the fact regarding dismissal of LPA has not been
disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. This amounts to
concealment of material fact by the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that
pertaining to all the widows including the petitioner whose pension has
been cancelled as their husbands had not completed 20 years of
service, their matter is under active re-consideration by the Ministry of
Home Affairs.
8. In the facts and circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons,
there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the respondents
declining the ordinary family pension to the petitioner by order dated
12th June, 2008. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However,
dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice the rights of the
petitioner for its consideration of grant of ordinary family pension by the
respondents which is stated to be under consideration.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
MAY 28, 2012
vk
