State Of Uttarakhand And Others ..... ... vs Smt. Khasti Devi And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4195 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand And Others ..... ... vs Smt. Khasti Devi And Another on 10 September, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

                                                                         2025:UHC:8044-DB

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                       Special Appeal No.147 of 2018

State of Uttarakhand and others                                            ..... Appellants

                                              Vs.

Smt. Khasti Devi and another                                             ......Respondents

Presence:
Mr. Rahul Verma, learned Addl. A.G. for the State/appellants.
Mr. S.K. Shah, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. I. D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh/respondent no.2.



Coram:          Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this Special Appeal is made to the judgment

and order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2151 of

2016, Smt. Khasti Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, by the

learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Respondent no.1 (the writ petitioner) filed the writ petition

seeking family pension, its arrears w.e.f. 09.01.1988 with interest

admissible as per law. By the impugned order, the petition was decided

by the Court holding that the lis is squarely covered by the judgment

rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S)

No.7212 of 2001, decided on 21.01.2004.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that Writ Petition (S/S)

No.7212 of 2001, Smt. Parvati Pandey Vs. State of Uttaranchal &

Others, was decided by this Court on 21.01.2004 and, in that case, a

Government Order was quashed, so far as it relates to petitioner in that

case and, thereafter, respondents in that case were directed to release

the family pension.

2025:UHC:8044-DB

5. It is argued that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt.

Parvati Pandey (supra) cannot be made applicable to any other person

except the petitioner of that writ petition and the instant writ petition

could not have been decided based on the judgment dated 21.01.2004

passed in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that, in fact,

the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 28.10.2004

of this Court passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No.445 of 2002, Smt.

Jeewanti Devi Vs. State and Others. He submits that this aspect has not

been discussed in the impugned judgment. He fairly concedes that the

case of the writ petitioner is not covered by the judgment rendered in the

case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra).

7. The impugned order is based on the judgment passed on

21.01.2004, in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra), but the ratio of

the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra), as stated, cannot be made

applicable to any other person, because in that case, a Government

Order was quashed qua the petitioner of that case alone, therefore, an

interference is warranted in the instant appeal.

8. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The

impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 is set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh, after

affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

(Alok Mahra, J.)                                                       (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
  10.09.2025                                                               10.09.2025

BS

BALWANT

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

2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf2 8cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,

SINGH st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F41 8755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.15 15:32:38 +05'30'