Point of Law : Provisions of Pension Scheme is discriminatory on the ground of Sex (gender) as only unmarried daughter is entitled to get the family pension life time on other hand there is discrimination with male who are also unmarried and depend upon the Family pension which is against the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Vikas Budhwar, JJ.

1. The petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by declaring the Constitutional Validity of Rule 7¼3½ ¼Hk½ of the Government Order mRrj Áns'k 'kklu] foRr ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&3] lkŒ&3&1508@nl&2008&308&97 y[kuÅ fnukad 08-12-2008 of U.P. retirement benefit Rules 1967 as well as new Family Pension Scheme 1965 to declare the part of G.O. bearig sentence ^^vkfJr ekrk&firk vfookfgr@rykd'kqnk@fo/kok iq=h dh ikfjokfjd isa'ku thou i;ZUr feysxhA** to declare it ultra virus as against the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India as ultra virus.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.3.2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 upon the complaint no.40020121002680 preferred by the petitioner.”

2. We have heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. With the consent of the parties the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. Admittedly as per case set out by the petitioner in the present writ petition, his father late Madan Mohan (since deceased) was an employee of respondent no.2 Public Works Department (In short P.W.D.) who expired. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Vidya Devi was conferred with the benefit of family pension and she was continuously paid family pension till her death i.e. 18.12.2020. Consequent to the death of his mother, the petitioner is before this Court seeking relief for declaring the part of the Government Order being Clause 7(3) (kha) (gha) bearing No. lkŒ&3&1508@nl& 2008&308&97] fnukad 8-12-2008 to be violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India as it creates a discrimination between son/daughter (including widow daughter) married/remarried or on attainment of age of 25 years vis-a-vis the dependent father, mother, unmarried/divorcee/widow daughter, who have been made entitled to life time family pension.

4. The Government Order No. lkŒ&3&1508@nl&2008&308& 97] fnukad 8-12-2008 has been filed as annexure-1 at page 13 of the paper book. Its alleged offending Clause 7(3) (gha) is quoted below:-

7¼3½ ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh vuqeU;rk gsrq ifjokj dks fuEu Ádkj oxhZd`r fd;k tk;sxkA

oxZ&1

¼d½ fo/kok@fo/kqj] vtUe vFkok iquZfookg] tks Hkh igys gksA

¼[k½ iq=@iq=h ¼fo/kok iq=h lfgr½ dks fookg@iquZfookg vFkok 25 o"kZ dh vk;q rd vFkok thfodksiktZu dh frfFk] tks Hkh igys gks] rdA

oxZ&2

¼x½ vfookfgr@fo/kok@rykd'kqnk iq=h] tks mijksDr oxZ&1 ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS] dks fookg@iquZfookg rd vFkok thfodksiktZu dh frfFk vFkok e`R;q dh frfFk rd tks Hkh igys gksA

¼Ä½ ,sls ekrk&firk tks ljdkjh lsod ij mlds thoudky esa iw.kZr% vkfJr jgs gks rFkk e`r ljdkjh lsod us vius ihNs dksbZ fo/kok@fo/kqj vFkok cPps ugha gksrh gSA

vkfJr ekrk&firk vfookfgr@rykd'kqnk@fo/kok iq=h dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku thou i;ZUr feysxhA

5. After going through the pleadings and arguments canvassed by the petitioner and the Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents No. 1 to 3, it is clear that the State Government has issued Government Order lkŒ&3&1508@ nl&2008&308&97] fnukad 8-12-2008 wherein provisions relating to the grant of family pension has been provided classifying the dependents, who are conferred with the benefit of family pension.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government Order dated 8.12.2008, as referred to above, creates discrimination and it is in violation of Article 15 of the Constitution of India as the benefit of life time family pension has been made admissible to dependents i.e. mother, father, unmarried/divorcee daughter/widow daughter but the same has been denied to son/daughter (inclusive of widow daughter) married/remarried or attainment of age of 25 years or till survival whichever is earlier.

7. In nutshell, what is being sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the peti