IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Smt. Ragini Srivasatva - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
WRIT - A NO. - 15557 OF 2018.
Decided On : 31-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's factual background regarding deceased husband's benefits. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal standing of petitioner against rival claims. (Para 8 , 15) |
| 3. legal definitions of 'family' under relevant rules. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 29) |
| 4. right to interest on delayed payment of dues. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 5. court's order to allow petition and direct payment of dues. (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
Heard Shri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent/State.
Prayer
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: -
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release and make payment of entire retiral benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband Late Ram Kumar Srivastava, which includes amount of Death Gratuity, leave encashment, G.P.F., G.I.S., arrear of salary in revised pay scale of the deceased fallen due with effect from 1.1.2006 to 5.10.2008 and family pension to the petitioner with effect from 6.10.2008 together with its arrears along with interest @ 12% per annum;
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum or an amount as may be quantified by this Hon'ble Court over the entire pending amount of the petitioner's deceased husband, Late Ram Kumar Srivastava due to arbitrary and illegally withholding the dues and creating inordinate delay from the date of his death i.e. 5.10.2008 till the actual payment is made by the opposite parties to the petitioner;
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commanding the State Government, the party No.1 to fix personal liability of the authority as per Government order dated 28.9.1999, contained in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition, who is responsible for creating inordinate delay in the payment of retiral dues including family pension to the petitioner by now about ten long years, thereby recover the amount of interest @ 12% per annum or above over the entire withheld amount from the liable authority and pay the same to the petitioner for suffering financial hardship and frame in absence of the payment of her legal dues;
(iv)....
(v)......"
Facts Of The Case
3. The husband of the petitioner, Ram Kumar Srivastava, while serving on the post of Tubewell Operator in Irrigation Department at Raebareli, died on 5.10.2008, leaving behind following family members who are dependants of deceased employee:-
1. Smt.Ragini Srivastava, wife of deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava,
2. Km.Niharika Srivastava, daughter of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava,
3. Km.Jyoti Srivastava, daughter of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava,
4. Amit Srivastava, son of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava.
4. On account of sudden death of the sole bread earner of the family, the family members have fallen into great financial crisis and as such, the petitioner approached to the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Chhajlapur, Rae Bareli requesting him to provide death-terminal dues of the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava to her and also she claimed compassionate appointment to her son, namely, Amit Srivastava. In response, the Executive Engineer required from the petitioner to submit the Succession Certificate granted by the competent Court. Thereafter, on 21.10.2008, the petitioner moved an application before the Executive Engineer, seeking to provide her the detail amount of dues of her deceased husband enabling her to get the succession certificate, however, when no heed was paid, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act about the pending dues of her deceased husband. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was informed that as on 27.1.2009 G.P.F. amount due was Rs.1,05,084/-, leave encashment was Rs.1,13,930/-, G.I.S. amount was Rs.60,000/- and amount of gratuity
Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P.
Indrajeet Singh v. State of U.P.
AI
The right to pension as a vested entitlement necessitates recognition of only legitimate dependents for the disbursement of retiral benefits, irrespective of the existence of previous marital ties.
Second marriage void without divorce from first spouse; benefits follow nomination and service records absent civil court declaration.
Married daughters are excluded from the definition of family for compassionate appointments under the applicable rules, and dependency must be established to qualify for such benefits.
The court established that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the substantive rights of illiterate individuals in claiming family pensions.
Mohammedan Law – Succession – A married daughter cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right specially when she has deliberately omitted to mention eligibility of her mother to get fa....
The legal point established is the entitlement of the legally wedded spouse to pensionary benefits under the applicable rules and the invalidity of nominations contrary to statutory provisions.
A missing government employee's family is entitled to pensions and benefits, even if disciplinary actions were taken during his absence, under certain statutory provisions.
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.