Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajesh Tandon
HEERA DEVI
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Decided On : 02 July 2006
Writ Petition No. 31 (S/s) of 2002
Mandamus - Pension and Family Pension - U. P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 - JT 1999 (2) SC 359, 2002 (8) Supreme Today 487, AIR 1983 SC 130, 2003 (7) AIC 18 SC, 1985 (1) S. C. C. 429, 2004 (1) U. D. 603 - The court discussed various legal provisions and interpretations related to pension and family pension, emphasizing the obligation of the government department to timely disburse retirement benefits and the entitlement of employees to pension and family pension after a certain period of service. The court also highlighted the principle that pension is a valuable right of the employee and the necessity for prompt payment of retirement dues. The judgment was influenced by the legal principles established in the mentioned cases, leading to the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to pay the outstanding dues and family pension with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the pension and outstanding dues of her husband from the date of his retirement to the date of his death, and to provide family pension to the petitioner after her husband's death. The petitioner's husband was compulsorily retired due to ill health and subsequently passed away. The petitioner claimed that her husband was entitled to pension and family pension, but the respondents delayed the disbursement, leading to the petitioner's filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's husband had served for over 15 years and was entitled to pension and family pension. The court held the government department responsible for the delay in disbursing the retirement benefits and emphasized the recurring cause of action for the claimant due to the non-payment of pension or family pension. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to receive the outstanding dues of her husband's pension and family pension with interest.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the entitlement of the petitioner's husband to pension and family pension, the responsibility of the government department to timely disburse retirement benefits, and the recurring cause of action for the claimant due to the non-payment of pension or family pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principles that pension is a valuable right of the employee, the necessity for prompt payment of retirement dues, and the obligation of the government department to timely disburse retirement benefits. The court also considered the entitlement of employees to pension and family pension after a certain period of service, emphasizing the recurring cause of action for the claimant due to the non-payment of pension or family pension.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the pension and outstanding dues of the petitioner's husband from the date of his retirement to the date of his death, and to provide family pension to the petitioner after her husband's death. The petitioner was also entitled to receive interest on the outstanding amounts, and the entire dues were to be satisfied within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus di recting the respondents to pay the pen sion and other outstanding dues of her husband to the petitioner w. e. f. 16-03-1983 (when her husband was retired from service on ground of ill-health) to 28-03-1989; and pay family pension to the petitioner with effect from 29-03-1989 when her husband died due to his continued ill-health.
3. Briefly stated according to the petitioner the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Pashu Sewak, a class IV post, in the de partment of Animal Husbandry in Dis trict Pithoragarh as on 10-6-1967 and has put-in more than 15 years of serv ice in the department of Animal Hus bandry as
a class-IV employee to the satisfaction of higher officers and dur ing the entire service period, no adverse remark was awarded to him and his work and conduct remained up to the mark. No disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against him for any mis conduct. In the year 1981-82, when he was posted as Pashu Sewak at Khetikhan, District Pithoragarh, some serious disease developed to petition ers husband and his health started de teriorating day by day. On 16-03-1983, her husband was compulsorily retired on ground of his continuous ill health and due to the reason of his continueous ill health and he breathed his last on 29-03-1989.
4. The petitioner has further sub mitted that since the husband of the pe titioner had put-in more than 15 years service in the department of the Animal Husbandry, it was the legitimate expec tation of petitioners husband to get pension after his retirement but he was not paid pension as a result of which proper medical treatment could not be provided to him during his life time and resultantly he died before time.
5. It has been stated by the peti tioner in Paragraph 9 and 11 of the writ petition that the Deputy Director, Ani mal Husbandry, Kumaun Division, Nainital vide his letter dated 20-08-1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, directed the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh to take appropriate steps for providing family pension to the pe titioner. The relevant portion of the let ter of the Deputy Director dated 20-08-1996 is reproduced below:
Hindi
6. The Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh supplied all the required papers including service book of peti tioners husband to the Director, Pen sion, U. P. Lucknow, through the letter dated 12-03-1997, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The contents of the letter of the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh is reproduced to below:
Hindi
7. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner annexed two letters of her deceased husband by which he had de manded pension from the department of Animal Husbandry after his compul sory retirement. One letter is of the month of October 1984 and another letter is of 23 & 24-09-1985.
8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and in Paragraph 4 of the same it has been stated that the husband of the petitioner had not fur nished relevant papers to the depart ment for getting pension; and due to latches on the part of the petitioners husband, pension was not sanctioned for him. This plea has been taken again in Paragraph 7 and 9 of the Counter affidavit. In reply to the contents of Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner in Paragraph 4 of the rejoin der affidavit stated the following:
"4. That the contents of Paragraph 4 of the C. A. , in the manner stated are not correct. In the supplemen tary affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner categori cally stated that after compulsory re tirement of the husband of the peti tioner on ground of continued ill health, he claimed Invalid pension from the department and submitted letters/representations to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Pithoragarh under whom he was then working and to the other authorities
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
