NAFR

(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal and Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1/State, Mr. Ashwani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Accountant General as well as Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Bank.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):

“10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that cut of date fixed as 21.08.2024 in Annexure P/2 is illegal without authority and having no nexus with either Lokayukt Adhiniyam 2002 & Chhattisgarh Pramukh Lokayukt and Lokayukt (Seva Ki Shartien) Niyam 2008, the respondent has not seen amended portion in which date of death of Pramukh Lokayukt has been mentioned in amendment, therefore it ought to have been fixed as cut of date from "04.12.2015" instead of 21.08.2024.

10.2. That, the respondent be directed to pay the arrears of family pension from 04.12.2015 till 21.08.2024 together with 18% interest, if no family pension has been paid after 21.08.2024, then till payment it be released with interest at the rate of 18% @ per annum till payment.

10.3. That, cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner from respondent.

10.4. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.”

3. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the wife of a retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim. After his superannuation, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Chief Lok Ayukt, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog. The husband of the petitioner used to get pension in his lifetime after superannuation. The petitioner was getting pension even after the death of her husband. However, later, all of a sudden, the respondent No. 3-Bank asked the petitioner vide its letter dated 31.01.2019 to return the pension which was credited in her account amounting to Rs.12,67,871/-. The petitioner duly returned back the amount to the Bank by way of demand draft on 05.03.2019.

4. According to Mr. H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WPS No. 794/2021 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the vires of the Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Pramukh Lokayukt Evam Lokayukt (Sewa Ki Shartein) Niyam, 2008 (for short, the Rules of 2008). In the said writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant family pension to her.

5. Mr. Agrawal further submits that the petitioner seeks to challenge the vires of the Rules of 2008 on the ground that the alleged cut off date fixed for grant of family pension is illegal and arbitrary in nature and without any authority because there is no nexus either with the Chhattisgarh Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002) or the Rules of 2008 and further the word ‘death of Pramukh Lokayukt’ has been mentioned in the amended Rule 11 of the Rules of 2008 and no reasoning has been given. The cut of date fixed in notification (Annexure P/2) as 21.08.2024 is illegal without authority and has no nexus either with Act of 2002 or the Rules of 2008. The word death of ‘Pramukh Lokayukt’ has been mentioned in amended Rule 11, and the date of death of Pramukh Lokayukt in this case is 04.12.2015, therefore it is liable to be changed from "21.08.2024 to 04.12.2015" and it be held that cut of date fixed as 21.08.2024 is illegal since no reasoning has been given for putting in the amendment, therefore be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 submit