IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the retrospective application of the family pension scheme must be interpreted liberally to benefit dependents, emphasizing adherence to natural justice before withdrawing vested rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and Mr. S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 4 & 5.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.05.2016 whereby family pension granted earlier to petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2007 was withdrawn. It is submitted that petitioner's husband late Sudhakar Pandey was employed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School concerned on 16.12.1973 and passed away while in service on 10.01.1977 having rendered service of just about three years.

3. Since petitioner was not granted benefit of family pension, she filed Writ Petition No. 6068 (S/S) of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2007 directing the concerned authority to consider and decide petitioner's claim for grant of family pension. It is in pursuance thereof that family pension was granted to petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2007. It is submitted that in the meantime one Smt. Phoolmati Devi who was similarly situated as petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5993 (S/S) of 2015 claiming family pension. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2015 however, indicating the submission of learned counsel for parties that family pension has been granted to other persons as well though they were not covered by the Family Pension Scheme vide Government order dated 17.12.1965. The Director Basic Education was therefore directed to hold an inquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action where the pension payment orders had been wrongly issued and payments had been made.

4. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid directions that the impugned order has been passed withdrawing family pension to a number of such dependents who had been granted family pension in pursuance of Government order dated 17.12.1965.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that earlier a triple benefit scheme was notified by the State Government on 17.12.1965 and as per Clause 24 thereof, it was provided that family pension would be granted for a period of 10 years to the family of an employee who dies either while in service or after retirement upon completion of not less than 20 years of qualifying service. It is submitted that subsequently the State Government issued another Government order dated 31.03.1982 whereby a new scheme for family pension was introduced. The said scheme came into effect from 01.10.1981 in which substantive change made was in paragraph 3 (ka) whereby it was provided that in case of such employees who passed away while in service after rendering even only one year of continuous service, the dependents thereof would be entitled for family pension.

6. It is further submitted that by means of subsequent order dated 06.06.1984, issued by the State Government, the aforesaid notification was made applicable even in those cases where the employee had passed away prior to 01.10.1981.

7. It is therefore submitted that once Government order dated 31.03.1982 has been made retrospective in operation even upon those employees who passed away prior to 01.10.1981, it is the notification dated 31.03.1982 which would be applicable upon petitioner and since her case would be covered by paragraph 3 (ka), petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension.

8. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the light of judgment rendered in the Case of Chandrawati Devi (Smt.) versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2520 whereby grant of such pensionary benefits was rejected.

9. It is submitted that even in the case of Smt. Phoolmati Devi (supra), directions have been issued on the basis of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Chandrawati Devi (Smt.) (supra) but the aspect that aforesaid judgment of Chandrawati Devi (Smt.) (supra) had been overruled by Div