WPSS/313/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 407 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                              BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 313 of 2022


BETWEEN:
     Smt. Kamla Devi.                                   ........Petitioner
     (By Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate)


AND:
     State of Uttarakhand & others.                     ...Respondents
     (By Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. C.S.C. with Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief
     Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents)


                               JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. According to the petitioner, her husband Siromani was appointed as daily-wager in Syalde Forest Range of Soil conservation Division, Ranikhet, District Almora, in April, 1968 and after serving more than 40 years in the said forest division, he attained age of superannuation, in the year 2008.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband subsequently passed away on 09.07.2019. Grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that she has not been paid any retiral benefits, including family pension, gratuity, bonus etc.

4. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing for the respondents submits that since petitioner's husband was appointed while Uttarakhand

was part of State of U.P., therefore, State of U.P. is required to be impleaded as respondent, which has not been done, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. She further submits that the claim made by the petitioner for retiral dues of her husband is highly belated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 910 of 2021, 'Ganga Singh v. State of Uttarakhand & others'. Based on the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has held that even daily-wager employees, who have served State of Uttarakhand for long time, cannot be denied benefit of pension. He, therefore, submits that petitioner is also entitled for pension and other retiral dues, even though her husband was not given status of a regular employee.

6. The submissions made by learned Addl. C.S.C. are unacceptable. Since petitioner's husband allegedly retired after eight years of State reorganization, therefore, the liability, if any of paying pension to him is of State of Uttarakhand and not of State of U.P. The plea regarding delay raised by learned Addl. C.S.C. is also misconceived, as non- payment of pension gives rise to a recurring cause of action, therefore, in case where writ petition is filed for non-payment of pension, it cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay.

7.              Having        regard        to    the    facts    and
circumstances    of the       case,     the       writ petition is

disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make fresh

representation to Divisional Forest Officer, Soil Conservation Division, Ranikhet, District Almora within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated time, the same shall be decided by Divisional Forest Officer, in accordance with law, as early as possible but, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin