Smt. Bhagwati Devi Mathpal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2012 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition (S/S) No. 924 of 2019

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Mathpal                       ... Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others                 ... Respondents

                           With
           Writ Petition (S/S) No. 927 of 2019

Jyda                                             ... Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others                 ... Respondents


           Writ Petition (S/S) No. 928 of 2019

Rajo Devi                                        ... Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others                 ... Respondents


       Mr. B.S. Bhandair, Advocate, for the petitioners.
       Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel, for the State/respondents
       no. 1 to 3.
       Mr.    Davesh   Bishnoi,   Advocate,      for   the Nagar
       Nigam/respondent no. 4.


                      6.7.2022

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these are being decided together. For brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 924 of 2019 are being referred herein.

Petitioner's husband Sri Nityanand Mathpal was a regular employee in Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur. He

served in Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur w.e.f. 29.7.1956 till 22.9.1995. On 22.9.1995, petitioner's husband died while serving on the post of Moharrir. According to petitioner, after death of her husband, she received family pension @ ₹ 150/- per month only up to the month of June 2002, after which payment of family pension was altogether stopped. Aggrieved by stoppage of family pension, petitioner made a representation which was rejected vide order dated 22.2.2014, passed by the Director, Audit and Accounts, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The ground stated for rejecting petitioner's claim for family pension is that family pension was payable to petitioner only up to 24.6.2002 in view of the stipulation made in the Pension Payment Order of her husband.

It is not in dispute that petitioner's husband was a member of Palika (Non-Centralized) Service. Statutory rules have been framed for the members of Palika (Non- Centralized) Service called Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Retirement Benefit Rules, 1984. The said rules (as is applicable to the State of Uttarakhand) were amended by the Government of Uttarakhand vide notification dated 18.9.2008. Rule 1 and 2 of the amended rules, notified on 18.9.2008, are reproduced below:

"1. Short Title and Commencement--

(1) These Regulations may be called "The Uttarakhand (The Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984) (Amendment) Regulations, 2008.

(2) They shall come into force at once. (3) These Regulations shall be uniformly applicable to such employees of the Non-Centralized Services of the Nagar Palika Parishads and Nagar

Panchayats who retired prior to June 29, 2007.

2. Insertion of new sub-regulation (6) in Regulation 4--

In Regulation 4 of the "The Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non-Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984 (as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand)", new sub- regulation (6) shall be inserted as follows, namely:--

"4(6) The rates of pension/family pension/gratuity, gratuity on death amended as above shall also be admissible to all such regular employees of the Non-Centralized Services of the Nagar Palika Parishads and Nagar Panchayats of the State who retired prior to June 29, 2007: Provided that such retired employees shall be paid arrears only from June 29, 2007."

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the amendment made in the aforesaid rules in 2008 and submitted that the ceiling qua the quantum payable as family pension prescribed in the retirement benefit rules, as it then existed before 2008, has been done away with and the condition in the earlier rules that family pension will be payable only till the time the employee concerned attains the age of 65 years has also been done away with.

He further pointed out that the amendment, made vide notification dated 18.9.2008, is applicable to all those persons who retired prior to 29.6.2007 from Palika (Non- Centralized) Service. However, respondent no. 3 completely overlooked the said amended provision while taking decision on petitioner's representation. He, thus, submits that the respondent no. 3, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider that the rules, governing the field, have undergone a change.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that one Smt. Dilbary Begum, whose husband was also a member of Palika (Non-Centralized) Service and was serving in Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur, was to be paid family pension up to February, 2004 when her husband completed 65 years of age. However, since the rules stood amended in 2008, she is still being paid family pension and that too at the enhanced rate.

This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Since retirement benefit rules, applicable to the members serving in Palika (Non- Centralized) Service, have undergone change in 2008, therefore petitioner's claim should have been considered in the light of the amended statutory provision. Since that has not been done, writ petitions are liable to be allowed.

Consequently, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 22.2.2014 is set aside. Matter is remitted back to respondent no. 3 to reconsider the petitioner's claim in the light of the discussion made hereinabove and take a decision within one month from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced.

No order as to costs.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Pr