The denial of family pension based on the retirement date of the employee was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ch. N. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri N. D. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a widow of an employee of the state Government, has claimed for the following reliefs :

" (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30. 7. 2001 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghazipur (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay the family pension to the petitioner. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (d) Award the costs of petition in favour of the petitioner. "

( 3 ) THE order impugned in the present writ petition dated 30. 7. 2001 has been passed in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in C. M. W. P. No. 2923 of 2001, Mussommat Sajida Begum v. State of U. P. and Anr. decided on 25. 1. 2001, whereby this Court has issued certain directions, which run as under :

"having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, the respondent No. 1 is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the aforementioned representation/application of the petitioner expeditlously preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with true copy of the said representation is filed before him. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Dated 25. 1. 2001 sd. R. K. Agrawal, J. "

( 4 ) THE order impugned herein purported to reject the claim of the petitioner for family pension on the ground that the petitioners husband has retired on 30. 11. 1972 and he was paid his pension through his life time. It has further stated in the order that petitioners husband had died on 12. 1. 1994 whereas the petitioner, according to the records available in the office of the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Ghazipur, has been paid pension for her husband up to April, 1994 and the excess amount that has been transferred in the account of the petitioners husband towards pension amount has not yet been returned back by the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for the payment of family pension to her. The respondents have refused to pay the family pension to the petitioner on the ground that family pension is made payable by the G. O. dated 31. 3. 1982 and it is payable to family of such employees w. e. f. 1. 10. 1981 and the said scheme of family pension is made applicable to the teachers of the institution run and managed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad like that of one where the petitioners husband was working has been made applicable w. e. f. 8. 3. 1978, therefore, since the husband of the petitioner has already retired on 30. 11. 1972. the petitioner is not entitled for the family pension.

( 5 ) SO far as the first objection with regard to the excess payment of the family pension of the petitioner is concerned, which is for the months of January, 1994 to April, 1994, it has been stated that the same has been transferred in the account of petitioners husband, whereas according to the order impugned herein petitioners husband has died on 12. 1. 1994. The tenure of the order goes to say that as if the petitioner has realised the said amount without recording the finding as to whether petitioner has in fact withdrawn that amount from the bank or not is not tenable.

( 6 ) IN any view of the matter, it is only the matter of accounting. If the petitioner has realised this amount, the same may be adjusted in view of my findings, which are going to be recorded with regard t