[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2525/2019 on 20 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:1980
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/2525/2019
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Mohit Bhauryal, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel,
for the State.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for
the respondent no. 5.
(2) Petitioner's husband was member of
Nagar Palika Non-Centralised Service, who
died on 20.11.2006. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner's husband
retired on 31.1.2002 and during his lifetime,
he was getting pension, however after his
death, family pension was not paid to his wife
(petitioner). Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner had earlier filed a writ
petition, which was disposed of with a direction
to concerned authority to consider petitioner's
case for payment of family pension along with
arrears thereof. He submits that Executive
Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner
holding that petitioner is not eligible for family
pension as per applicable rules.
(3) Learned State Counsel submits that
Additional Secretary, Urban Development
Department issued a inter-departmental letter,
addressed to Director, Audit and Accounts, on
26.9.2014, wherein it was stated that persons,
whose entitlement for family pension has come
to an end and those, to whom payment of
family pension has been stopped in terms of
the government policy, are not entitled for any
further consideration for payment of family
pension.
(4) In this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged inter-departmental communication
dated 26.9.2014 and she has also challenged
the rejection order dated 21.6.2018. Learned
2026:UHC:1980
Counsel for the petitioner submits that this
Court decided similar issue in WPSS No. 924 of
2019, therefore this writ petition also deserves
to be decided in terms of the judgment
rendered in the said writ petition.
(5) Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that pension rules applicable to
members of Non-Centralised Service were
amended on 14.11.2024 and Rule 7 of the
amended rules provides that family pension
would be restored to persons, who were
appointed before 1.10.2005, however no
arrears shall be payable.
(6) Learned State Counsel as well as
learned Counsel appearing for Nagar Palika
submitted that Pension Payment Order has
been issued in favour of petitioner on
20.8.2025 and payment of family pension has
now started to petitioner.
(7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner,
however, submits that petitioner is entitled for
arrears of family pension, which has not been
paid so far.
(8) Having regard to the fact that the
payment of family pension to petitioner has
started and now the only issue is regarding
arrears, therefore this Court thinks that ends
of justice would be met if petitioner is
permitted to approach the competent authority
by making a representation. Writ petition is,
accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to
petitioner to make representation regarding
arrears of family pension before Director,
Urban Development Authority. If she makes
such representation within two weeks from
today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as
per law, within three months thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.3.2026
Pr
PRABODH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab
KUMAR
198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6
FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.20 18:48:04 +05'30'
2026:UHC:1980
