Back
2004 Supreme(UK) 9
2004 (1) U.D., 603
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.
Smt. Parwati Pande
Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others
Writ Petition no. 7212 (S/S) of 2001,
Decided on : 21-01-2004.
Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The judgment reaffirmed that pension is an indefeasible right of the employee and their dependants, and the denial of family pension can amount to deprivation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Family Pension - Government Order - 1965 - 24
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought family pension after her husband's death, which was denied based on a government order limiting the period for family pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the widow of a retired government servant, had a right to claim family pension, and the denial of the pension amounted to depriving her of her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of family pension to the petitioner based on a government order limiting the period for family pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established by previous judgments, emphasizing that pension and gratuity are valuable rights and property, and the delay in disbursement must be penalized. The court also highlighted the obligation of welfare states to preserve human dignity and the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court quashed the relevant paragraph of the government order and directed the release of family pension to the petitioner within one month.
2.By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing paragraph no. 24 of Government Order dated 17.12.1965 and commanding the respondents to release family pension in favour of the petitioner.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner late Sri Narayan Dutt Pandey was posted as Principal, in Junior High School, Mallital, Nainital who retired after superannuating age on 31.10.1974. Sri Narayan Dutt Pandey was getting pension during his life time. The petitioner has stated that after the death of her husband she has moved a representation before the Director; Education Basic Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for granting her family pension. The matter was referred to the Finance and Accounts Officer (Finance Controller), Allahabad, who ultimately rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 3.7.1999 on the ground that as per paragraph 24 of G.O. No. A-5355/15-5133-1962 dated 17.12.1965, the family pension can be given only for the period of 10 years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is less, after the date of superannuation.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and admitted the fact that Sri Narayan Dutt Pandey was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17.7.1936 In Nagar Palika, Nainital. He remained employed under the Nagar Palika till 31. 7.1972 and after promulgation of Basic Education Act 1972, his services were transferred to Basic Shiksha Parishad. The respondents have reiterated that according to the proviso of paragraph 24 of G.O. No. 5355/15-3133-1962 dated 17.12.1965, no family pension is payable to the petitioner after the death of her husband.
5. It has been held in 1985 (1) SCC, 429 State of Kerela and others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension is a valuable right and property and the petitioner has a right to claim by virtue of the continuous services rendered by him. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below :-
" Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment."
6. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court has also been followed in JT 1999 (2) SC 359 Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another and has held as under:-
"Now-a-days, several writ petitions are being filed in this court and various High Courts seeking relief for disbursement, of retiral benefits, because of inordinate delays in payment of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer J. stated in State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri & others (1974 (4) S.C.C. 308), a retired government official Is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits. And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public servant -not unusual in government, it is becoming necessary to issue directing, in several cases, for early payment of these dues. In yet another case in State of Kerela and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985 (1) SCC 429) this court had occasion to point out that usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (last pay certificate) and the N.L.C. (no liability certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned Government Departments. Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amo
