Shanti Devi vs State Of Utarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3232 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Shanti Devi vs State Of Utarakhand And Others on 25 June, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition No.2079 of 2023 (S/S)
Shanti Devi                                                       ..........Petitioner
                                         Vs.
State of Utarakhand and others                           ............. Respondents
Present :     Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Deputy Advocate                    General   for   the
              State/respondent nos.1 to 4.


                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to

communication dated 02.05.2019 as well as order dated

04.10.2021, passed by respondent no.4, Divisional Forest Officer,

Kedarnath, Wild Life Division, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli ("the

DFO"), by which, the petitioner has been denied family pension on

the ground that the husband of the petitioner (deceased), Sate

Singh Rawat did not complete 10 years service so as to entitle her

benefit. In fact, in his order dated 04.10.2021, the respondent

no.4/the DFO has stated that the petitioner's husband could not

have denied benefit of Section 6(a) of the Uttarakhand Retirement

Benefits Act, 2018 ("the 2018 Act") because he had retired prior to

the year 2018.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. According to the petitioner, her husband Sate Singh

was working in the Forest Department; his services were

regularized on 02.07.2003; the husband of the petitioner was not

keeping well, he took voluntary retirement, which was accepted on

30.06.2013 and subsequently, he died on 15.10.2013. But, the

petitioner has not been granted family pension on the ground that

her husband has rendered only 09 years, 09 months and 29 days'

service, which is not eligible for grant of pension because for grant

of pension the minimum service required is 10 years.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's

husband's services were regularized on 02.07.2003. Therefore, the

provisions of the 2018 Act can be made applicable on him in view of

Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act. It is further the case of the petitioner

that in view of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act, the period of six month

and more than six month shall be considered one year and by this

interpretation the petitioner's husband's service can be treated as

10 years service, so as to make him eligible for grant of pension.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit

that the petitioner is also entitled to get interest @ 6% interest per

annum on the unpaid amount of pension. He cites the principle of

law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State

of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh, (2017)1 SCC

49. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 10 has

observes as follows:-

"10. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, as above, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned order [State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine All 971] passed by the High Court in respect of interest directed to be paid on the amount of withheld gratuity and pension. We direct that the appellants shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the unpaid amount of pension from the date it had fallen due and interest @ 8% p.a. on the unpaid amount of gratuity from the date of retirement of the employee."

6. The respondent no.4/the DFO has filed counter

affidavit. According to it, the husband of the petitioner took the

voluntary retirement prior to completion of minimum 10 years of

service, which is required for pensionary benefits. Therefore, the

writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the husband of the petitioner, Sate Singh Rawat was regularized on

02.07.2003; he took voluntary retirement, which was accepted on

30.06.2013; he has rendered 09 years 09 months and 29 days'

service. It is argued that the petitioner has denied family pension

on the following two grounds:-

(i) That the husband of the petitioner did not

complete 10 years of minimum service; and or

(ii) The benefit of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act cannot

be extended to the petitioner because the

husband of the petitioner has retired prior to the

enforcement of the 2018 Act.

8. It is argued that both the propositions are wrong

because in view of Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act, the 2018 Act shall

be applicable on the personnel substantively appointed before the

date of 1st October, 2005 and in view of Section 6(a) of the 2018

Act, six month or more than six month shall be considered one

year. The husband of the petitioner has rendered 09 years, 09

months and 29 days' service, before he voluntarily retired.

Therefore, it shall be considered 10 years.

9. Learned State counsel would submit that when the

husband of the petitioner retired, at that time, the U.P. Rules were

applicable and accordingly, the case of the husband of the

petitioner was decided; the husband of the petitioner has not

rendered 10 years of service, therefore, he was not entitled for

pension.

10. Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act, reads as follows:-

"1(2) This Act shall be applicable on the personnel substantively appointed before the date of 1st October, 2005 under the services of State Government in the case of completion of superannuation age, voluntary retirement and compulsory retirement and in the case of death of any personnel, shall be applicable on the dependents of such personnel"

11. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner Sate Singh

Rawat was regularized on 02.07.2003, which means that he was

substantively appointed before the date of 1st October, 2005.

Therefore, the provisions of the 2018 Act shall remain applicable on

him. Now, the question is, whether he is entitled to the benefit of

Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed 09 years, 09

months and 29 days' service before he took voluntary retirement.

Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act reads as follows:-

"6(a) Pension shall not permissible if services are for less than ten years (six month and more than six month shall be considered one year and the period of less than six months shall not be calculated)."

13. A bare reading of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act, this

Section makes it abundantly clear that six month and more than

six month shall be considered one year. The petitioner's husband

has completed 09 years, 09 months and 29 days of service. It shall

be considered as 10 years and it is the service, which makes the

petitioner eligible for pension. Therefore, the impugned orders are

bad in the eyes of law. They deserve to be set aside and the petition

deserves to be allowed.

14. The petition is allowed.

15. The impugned orders are set aside.

16. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of

the petitioner for family pension treating her husband, Sate Singh

Rawat eligible for pension. The petitioner shall be entitled to get

interest @ 6% per annum on the unpaid amount of pension from

the date it had fallen due.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.06.2025 Sanjay

SANJAY

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd5046 86df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,

KANOJIA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC 450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.06.26 18:13:25 +05'30'