February vs Smt. Kaushalya Negi @ Sona Devi
2026 Latest Caselaw 871 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

February vs Smt. Kaushalya Negi @ Sona Devi on 10 February, 2026

                                                       2026:UHC:1011-DB
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

                                 AND

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                  Special Appeal No.210 of 2025
                           10 February, 2026


   Union of India and Others                           -----Appellants

                                  Versus

   Smt. Kaushalya Negi @ Sona Devi                    ----Respondent
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Presence:-
   Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of
   India.
   Mr. Pawan Mishra and Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel for the
   respondent.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2025)

1. The appellants, by means of instant appeal,

have challenged the order of learned Single Judge dated

30.04.2024 by which WPSS No.1122 of 2016, "Smt.

Kaushalya Negi Alias Sona Devi Vs. Union of India and

Others" was allowed to the extent of award of interest @

7% on the arrears of pension, and also the order dated

03.04.2025, passed on the recall application of the

appellants.

2. The office has reported a delay of 446 days in

filing the instant appeal, reckoning the limitation from the

2026:UHC:1011-DB date of original order in the writ petition i.e. from

30.04.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

the application filed by the appellants for modification of

the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of

award of interest, came to be rejected on 03.04.2025

and, thereafter, some time was spent in seeking legal

advice. He submits that the delay is bonafide and not on

account of any laches on part of the department. He

submits that in such circumstances the delay deserves to

be condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent

Shri Pawan Mishra states that he does not wish to file any

counter affidavit but has orally opposed the delay

condonation application.

5. As we find that the modification /recall

application was dismissed only on 03.04.2025 and,

thereafter, the appellants filed the appeal though with

some delay, which has been sufficiently explained,

therefore, in the interest of justice, we condone the same

and direct the office to allocate a regular number to the

instant appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the

appeal.

7. The writ petition filed by the contesting

respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the writ-

2026:UHC:1011-DB petitioner") was for a direction to the appellants to make

regular payment of family pension to the petitioner and

also pay arrears since November, 2013 along with

interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner was getting

regular family pension after the death of her husband

Ram Singh Negi on 23.01.2011. In November, 2013, the

pension was stopped by Punjab National Bank, Branch

Adhoiwala, District Dehradun, the Distributing Branch,

noticing that in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) of late

Ram Singh Negi, the deceased husband of the petitioner,

name of his wife was recorded as Sona Devi and not that

of the petitioner i.e. Kaushalya Negi while the life

certificate furnished by the petitioner, was singed by her.

8. It is worthwhile to note that Sona Devi was the

first wife of late husband of the petitioner and, according

to the case of the petitioner, the marriage between her

late husband and Sona Devi was dissolved by an order

passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Original

Suit No.27 of 2005 dated 14.12.2006. The petitioner,

therefore, had claimed right to receive family pension as

a widow.

9. It is not disputed before us that in the service

record of the deceased husband of the petitioner name of

his first wife i.e. Sona Devi was recorded and it appears

that the same was not got changed by the deceased

husband of the petitioner during his lifetime. In the

2026:UHC:1011-DB pension payment order also name of Sona Devi was

mentioned but, at the time of preparation of pension

papers he submitted a joint photograph with a lady

showing her as his wife and it was that of the petitioner.

10. This discrepancy was noticed by the bank from

the life certificate filed by the petitioner which bore her

signatures. Consequently, it stopped the release of

pension. It has also come on record that, thereafter, an

inquiry ensued and in the said inquiry Sona Devi claimed

right to receive pension. The department got the matter

inquired into by the District Administration. On

30.04.2015, the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal

informed the department that the issue was got inquired

into by Tehsildar, Tehri. He has submitted his report dated

17.04.2015 and in which it is stated that Sona Devi was

the first wife of the deceased Ram Singh Negi.

11. In view of the said inquiry, the department did

not recommend for release of pension which was stopped

by the Bank. The petitioner, consequently, served a notice

on the department under Section 80 CPC and when

pension was not paid to her, she filed writ petition before

this Court.

12. The writ court allowed the writ petition by

judgment and order dated 30.04.2024. The writ court has

held that although in the service record name of Sona

Devi was recorded, being the first wife of the deceased

2026:UHC:1011-DB employee, but the fact that their marriage was dissolved

by a decree of divorce by judgment and order dated

14.12.2006 was not disputed before him. The learned

Single Judge has also found that the judgment and order

dissolving the marriage has attained finality. The learned

Single Judge, therefore, held that once the dissolution of

marriage is not in dispute the petitioner would be entitled

to receive the family pension and, accordingly, allowed

the writ petition and directed the respondents to release

family pension to the petitioner as also arrears of family

pension w.e.f. November, 2013 and further direction was

issued for payment of interest @ 7% per annum.

13. The department complied with the order of the

writ court to the extent of payment of arrears of family

pension to the petitioner and is also regularly paying

monthly family pension. These facts are not in dispute.

14. The department has filed the appeal aggrieved

by the award of interest by the writ court. According to

the department, the pension was stopped by the Bank

and, therefore, the department cannot be saddled with

any liability of interest. It is also the case of the

department that before learned Single Judge, it was

pointed out that the Bank was necessary party but the

petitioner did not impleaded the Bank. Based on the said

contention, the department filed a modification

application before learned Single Judge for modification of

2026:UHC:1011-DB the operative part of the order to the extent the interest

has been awarded against the department. However,

recall application came to be rejected by the order dated

03.04.2025.

15. The relevant extract of the order passed by the

writ court dated 03.04.2025 on the recall application is as

follows:

"6. It is contended by learned counsel for respondents-review applicants that the arrear of family pension w.e.f. 01.11.2013 has been disbursed to the petitioner. So far as the interest of arrears of pension is concerned, the answering respondent department is not liable to pay the same, as the pension was stopped by the Punjab National Bank, Branch Adhoiwala, Dehradun, which was the necessary party for adjudication of the issue involving in the present matter, but the respective Bank has not been impleaded by the petitioner, therefore, all the burden has been shifted upon the answering respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family pension was stopped by the respondents and on the instructions of respondents, the bank did not pay the family pension to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to get the interest of the arrears of family pension.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I found favour with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to get the interest of arrears of family pension. Accordingly, the recall application (MCC/ 14853/2025) is rejected."

16. The learned counsel for the appellants

contends that the award of interest against the

department is without any fault on the part of the

Department. He has placed reliance on Rule 65 of the

CCS Pension Rules, 2021 in contending that the interest

2026:UHC:1011-DB could only be awarded against the department in case the

delay in payment was attributable to administrative

reasons or lapse. He submits that in the instant case, the

delay was not only attributable to the petitioner herself

but, in fact, she had initially played fraud upon the

authorities by impersonating herself as Sona Devi and

thereby succeeding in withdrawing the family pension.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner, soon after the

pension was stopped, communicated to the authorities

the factum relating to the dissolution of marriage of her

husband with his first wife Smt. Sona Devi in pursuance

of the judgment and order dated 14.12.2006 in Original

Suit No.27 of 2005. He further submits that the petitioner

on the direction of the department also got various

formalities completed so that her name is recorded in the

relevant records and family pension is paid to her

regularly.

18. In support of his submission, he has invited our

attention towards the letter dated 26.10.2014 by the

department addressed to the petitioner requiring her to

get the relevant facts notified in the Gazette of India. He

submits that the said formalities were got done by the

petitioner by getting the information published in the

Gazette dated 27.02.2015. He submits that, thereafter,

the petitioner also served a notice on the department on

2026:UHC:1011-DB 12.01.2016 stating that she had completed all the

formalities and along with it relevant documents,

including judgment of the District Judge dated

14.12.2006 dissolving the marriage between her late

husband and Sona Devi were also filed.

19. He submits that despite the petitioner having

completed the requisite formalities, the department did

not take any step to ensure that the pension is released

in favour of the petitioner and, consequently, the

petitioner had to approach this Court and only after the

writ was allowed, the pension was released in favour of

the petitioner.

20. We have examined the rival contentions and

also perused the record.

21. It is not in dispute before us that the factum

relating to dissolution of the marriage between Ram

Singh, late husband of the petitioner and his first wife

Sona Devi was not got entered in the official records by

Ram Singh during his lifetime. It is also not in dispute

that initially, the petitioner succeeded in getting family

pension by impersonating herself as Sona Devi.

22. The steps for getting the record amended were

taken by the petitioner in the year 2015 and the petition

was filed before the Court on 07.06.2016.

23. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects and to

balance rival interests, we feel persuaded to modify the

2026:UHC:1011-DB order of learned Single Judge and direct for payment of

interest on the arrears of pension only from the date of

filing of the writ petition i.e. 07.06.2016 till the date of

actual payment @ awarded by the writ court i.e. 7% per

annum simple interest. The order of learned Single Judge

would stand modified to the aforesaid extent.

24. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 10.02.2026 SS

SUKHBANT

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

2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6

SINGH 380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72 C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 13:07:00 +05'30'