Advocates:
['SUDHEER RANA', 'C S C', '', 'RAHUL PANDEY']

1

In Chamber

RESERVED

A.F.R.

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1337 of 2021

Petitioner :- Rahimun - Nisha

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudheer Rana

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Pandey

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1.

The petitioner is the widow of a Class-IV employee, who

superannuated from the services of the Nagar Palika Parishad,

Bindki, District Fatehpur, as a Daftari on 05.01.1995. She has

not been paid the post retiral benefits due on account of her

husband's services, including family pension till date. This is the

case that the petitioner has come up with before this Court,

praying for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents

to sanction and disburse the post retiral benefits due on

account of her husband's services.

2.

Heard Mr. Sudheer Rana, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent no.4 and Mr. Vimla Prasad, the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2

and 3.

3.

According to the petitioner, her husband, Mubarak

Hussain, retired as a Daftari, a Class-IV employee with the

Nagar Palika Parishad, Bindki, District Fatehpur. He retired on

05.01.1995, and passed away within the course of a year, on

16.12.1995. His services were acknowledged by the Chairman,

Nagar Palika Parishad, with the Palika, passing a condolence

resolution showering encomiums. Still, the petitioner's post

retiral benefits were not paid. The petitioner says that by the

time she instituted the present writ petition, she had become a

2

lean and impoverished woman of 81 years, looking forward to

the payment of her husband's post retiral benefits, including the

family pension.

4.

There is a letter dated 12.01.1996 on record from the

Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad addressed to the

Collector, Fatehpur concerning the post retiral benefits due to

the petitioner for her husband's services. This letter seems to

have been written in ignorance of the factum of the employee's

death, because it refers to pension payable to Mr. Mubarak

Hussain, a retired Daftari. All that it says is that the required

pension papers have not been forwarded by the Collector to the

Commissioner, which should be made available. It is the

petitioner's case that she has visited the office of the Nagar

Palika Parishad time over again during all these many years

and decades, but to no avail. It is also averred that the

petitioner is dependent on the meagre income of her son, who

is a married man and works as a labourer to earn his livelihood.

It is averred in Paragraph No.19 of the writ petition that there

are no dues outstanding against the petitioner's late husband

payable to the employers, yet the petitioner is being denied her

legitimate rights to pension etc. It is also pleaded that pension

is not a bounty, as also the other post retiral benefits, which

should come to her after her husband's demise. She has no

source of livelihood and is on the verge of starvation.

5.

There are two counter affidavits, carrying the

respondents' substantial defence, that is to say, one on behalf

of respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and the

other on behalf of respondent no.4, the Nagar Palika Parishad,

Bindki, Fatehpur represented by its Executive Officer. The last

3

affidavit is sworn by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika

Parishad.

6.

The stand taken in both the counter affidavits is almost

identical. It is not denied that the petitioner's husband retired

from the post of Daftari, but the date of his retirement is denied.

The Nagar Palika Parishad say that he retired on 30.09.1994,

whereas the petitioner says that it was 05.01.1995. That date

may not be very material. The defence which the Nagar Palika

Parishad have put forward, amongst others, in Paragraph No.8

of the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner's husband has

worked 10 months exceeding the period of his service, on th