Uttarakhand High Court
Km. Hansi Suyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1167 of 2022 (S/S)
Km. Hansi Suyal .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the
State/respondents.
With
Writ Petition No. 685 of 2022 (S/S)
Shobha Rani .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since common question of facts and law involved in
both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apt
that the facts of both these cases may be separated and examine.
3. The petitioner in this petition is daughter of Late Shri
Banwari Lal Bhatt. She was married, but subsequently, she
divorced on 08.04.2011. She was dependent on her mother for
livelihood, but her mother also died on 10.02.2021.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that her father Late Shri
Banwari Lal Bhatt was retired from the post of Principal of
Government Primary School, Lakhibagh, District Dehradun on
30.06.1990. He was paid pension as per Government Order ("G.O.")
dated 24.02.1989 from the State of Uttar Pradesh. He died on
31.08.1995. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner was paid family
pension till her death on 10.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner
under Rules being a divorced woman applied for family pension,
which has been denied to her by impugned communication dated
27.09.2021 by the respondent no.4, the District Education Officer.
This impugned communication that 27.09.2021 records that the
employees/Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad were provincialised
from 22.04.2006 and in the relevant G.O., there is no provision
made with regard to such Teachers/employees of the Basic Shiksha
Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006. This impugned
communication is based on a G.O. dated 13.09.2021 of the
respondent no.1. This G.O. dated 13.09.2021 of the respondent
no.1 records that provincialisation of Basic Shiksha Parishad was
done by the G.O. dated 24.06.2006, but this G.O. dated 24.06.2006
does not make any provision with regard to such personnel working
in the Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to
22.04.2006. The petitioner seeks family pension while setting aside
the impugned communication dated 27.09.2021 of the respondent
no.4.
5. The controversy in the instant petition is almost
similar. The petitioner in the instant case is unmarried daughter of
Late Shri Srikrishan Suyal, who was working as a Teacher in Basic
Shiksha Parishad School and had retired on 30.06.1987. He was
paid pension till his death on 08.02.2005. Thereafter, the mother of
the petitioner Smt. Tulsi Devi received family pension till
07.07.2020. When the petitioner applied for family pension, by the
impugned communication dated 20.11.2021 of the respondent
no.4, Deputy Education Officer, she was conveyed G.O. dated
13.09.2021 of the respondent no.1, which records that the
employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad were provincialised by
virtue of G.O. dated 24.06.2006, but it does not make any provision
with regard to such employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had
retired prior to 22.04.2006.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
by virtue of G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttarakhand
(Annexure No.2 in WPSS No.685 of 2022), all the employees of
Basic Shiksha Parishad were paid pension, family pension, etc. It is
argued that thereafter, after the recommendation of 6th Pay
Commission, by the G.O. dated 27.10.2008 of the State of
Uttarakhand (Annexure No.9 to the WPSS No.685 of 2022), it was
directed that pursuant to the recommendation of 6th Pay
Commission, the pensions of all those employees, who were earlier
receiving pension shall be revised. It is argued that in G.O. dated
24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh, unmarried daughter is
within the definition of family and by G.O. dated 27.10.2008,
divorced daughter is also included in the definition of family. It is
argued that both the petitioners are entitled for family pension.
7. Learned State Counsel does not dispute this
proposition. According to him, the G.O. dated 24.06.2006 of the
State of Uttarakhand states that all the employees of Basic Shiksha
Parishad would be employee of Government w.e.f. 22.04.2006, but
this G.O. does not make any provision with regard to the employees
of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006. It
is also submitted that by the subsequent G.O. dated 13.09.2021,
this position has further been clarified.
8. The fathers of the petitioners were working in Basic
Shiksha Parishad. They were entitled for pension by virtue of G.O.
dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh. After
recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, the State of Uttarakhand
also issued a G.O. dated 27.10.2008, which makes provisions with
regard to the pension of all the retired employees, who were
receiving pension prior to the recommendations of 6th Pay
Commission, which were made effective since 01.01.2006.
9. Grant of pension and provincialisation of the employees
by the G.O. dated 24.04.2006, may not be clubbed together for
denying pension to the petitioners. In G.O. dated 24.04.2006 of the
State of Uttarakhand, the only concern was with regard to the
change of status of such employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad.
Their services were transferred to the State Government and they
were treated as the employees of the State Government. It does not
say that such employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had
retired prior to 22.04.2006 and who were receiving pension by
virtue of G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh may
not be paid any pension. The G.O. dated 24.04.2006 does not deal
with the pensionary aspect of such employees of Basic Shiksha
Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006. Pension was granted
to the employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad by the G.O. dated
24.02.1989. There were provision of the family pension also in the
G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Further, in
the G.O. dated 27.10.2008 of the State of Uttarakhand. In fact, the
mother of both the petitioners were receiving family pension after
the death of their fathers. In WPSS No.1167 of 2022, the mother of
the petitioner did receive pension till 07.07.2020 and in WPSS
No.685 of 2022, the mother of the petitioner did receive pension till
10.02.2021. There is no reason to deny the pension to the
petitioners. Hence, both the petitions deserve to be allowed.
10. Both the petitions are allowed.
11. The impugned communications dated 20.11.2021 of
the respondent nos.4 and G.O. dated 13.09.2021 in WPSS No.1167
of 2022 and order dated 27.09.2021, issued by the respondent no.4
in WPSS No.685 of 2022 are set aside. The respondent authorities
are directed to issue family pension to the petitioners.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
05 .06.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1
afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,
KANOJIA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84
B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY
KANOJIA
Date: 2025.06.10 18:50:06 +05'30'
