Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Youth Welfare – Appellant
Versus
U.P. Govt. Lko. And Others - Respondent
Special Appeal Defective No. 648 of 2023
Decided on : 05-10-2023
Condonation of Delay - Family Pension - U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Regulations 361, 368, 370 of Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations - Rule 3(8) of Rules, 1961 - [DELAY] - [FAMILY PENSION] - [U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, Regulations 361, 368, 370, Rule 3(8)] - The court discussed the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, and Regulations 361, 368, 370 of Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations to determine the entitlement of family pension to the respondent. The court analyzed the appointment letter of the late husband, the nature of his employment as a daily wager, and the subsequent regularization of services of other employees. The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to family pension based on the nature of the late husband's employment and the regulations governing qualifying service for pension benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought family pension and retirement-cum-death dues for her late husband, who was initially appointed as a daily wager and later granted regular pay-scale. The State authorities rejected the claim, leading to a writ petition. The Single Judge directed the State authorities to calculate and pay the dues, which was challenged in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the late husband's employment as a daily wager did not qualify for family pension under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and relevant regulations. The court set aside the judgment related to family pension.
Issues: The main issue was whether the late husband's employment qualified the respondent for family pension under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and relevant regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the late husband's appointment letter, the nature of his employment, and the regulations governing qualifying service for pension benefits. The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to family pension based on the nature of the late husband's employment and the regulations.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment related to family pension was set aside. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
(C.M. Application 1 of 2023 : Application for Condonation of Delay)
(1) Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel representing the State authorities/appellants and Shri Mohammad Saifuddin, learned Counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner.
(2) There is delay of 128 days in filing the special appeal. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.
(3) Learned Counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner does not have any objection, if delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the matter is heard on merits.
(4) Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and in absence of any objection, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
(Order on Appeal)
(5) This intra Court appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the State authorities/appellants, assailing the judgment/order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 19513 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, not only has set-aside the order dated 25.01.2019 but has also directed the appellant/State authorities to calculate the retirement-cum-death dues of late husband of the writ petitioner/respondent and pay the same, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of the order and also pay family pension, as admissible, to her.
(6) The order under challenged in the writ petition dated 25.01.2019 essentially records the rejection of the representation of the writ petitioner/respondent filed by her claiming grant of retirement dues such as services dues, family pension and gratuity etc. of her late husband, who was working on the post of Junior Clerk in the office of District Youth Welfare and Regional Development Team, Sonbhadra.
(7) The record available before this Court in the instant appeal reveals that on 30.05.1990, late Naeem Khan, husband of the respondent/writ petitioner, was engaged as daily wager by the District Youth Welfare and Regional Development Team Officer on the post of Guard/Clerk as Volunteer w.e.f. 01.06.1990. While continuing to work as daily wager for about four years, late Naeem Khan, husband of the respondent/writ petitioner, preferred a representation seeking to grant him regular pay-scale on the post of Clerk on the ground that three similarly situated persons were granted the regular pay-scale of Clerk in the year 1990, however, no heed was paid to his claim and as such, late Naeem Khan, husband of respondent/writ petitioner, preferred Claim Petition No.545 of 19996 before the State Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide judgment/order dated 06.12.2005, allowed the claim petition with costs of Rs.2000/- with the following directions :-
(8) Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment/order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal, late Naeem Khan, the Director General of District Youth Welfare and Regional Development, Lucknow issued an order dated 13.10.2006, directing to pay salary in the regular pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 together with all admissible allowances for the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 15.10.1992. Further, revised pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590 together with all admissible allowances for the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 01.03.2004 was also granted to the husband of the
The judgment established that the nature of an employee's appointment and the regulations governing qualifying service for pension benefits are crucial in determining entitlement to family pension.
Daily wage employment does not qualify for pension benefits under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, as it lacks the necessary substantive and permanent status.
Court are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension.
Long-service casual workers' families entitled to pensionary benefits via notional regularization despite Uma Devi cut-off.
Long-service casual workers' families entitled to notional regularization for family pension and retiral benefits despite Uma Devi non-compliance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the deceased employee's wife to family pension based on the completion of more than one year of continuous service, as per Claus....
Service rendered as daily wager cannot be counted towards pension benefits unless regularized, as clarified by the Apex Court.
The right to receive pensionary benefits is constitutional and cannot be denied based on non-regularization of service, particularly after long continuous service, as it violates principles of fairne....
Widow of Class-III employee entitled to family pension with weightage for daily wage service (5 years daily=1 year regular), qualifying total service over 10 years; notional from death date to 31.12.....
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
