Disposed

Smt. Sabiha Askari v. Directorkarmik Prabandhan and Prashasan U.P.P.C.L. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2018WRIA/39068/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, widow of deceased government employee, challenged rejection of her family pension claim. High Court held that since terminal dues were already adjudicated via civil court, she must seek appropriate remedy there and disposed of the writ petition without finding illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no interference with impugned order; petitioner directed to seek appropriate remedy in civil court.

Smt. Sabiha Askari Vs Directorkarmik… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39068 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sabiha Askari Respondent :- Director(Karmik Prabandhan & Prashasan),U.P.P.C.L. & 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Baleshwar Chaturvedi,Usha Kiran

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondent nos.1 to 4. So far as the respondent no.5 is concerned, there is already a direction of the Court to proceed ex-parte . We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter itself finally.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition claims to be the widow of late Sayyed Tahir Askari, a government employee. She is claiming family pension including arrears of family pension. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no.4 vide the impugned order on the ground that late Sayyed Tahir Askari had never made any nomination in the pension papers in favour of any heir. A similar dispute had arisen between the parties with regard to the terminal dues of late Sayyed Tahir Askari and an application was filed by the petitioner herein, being Misc. Case No.124 of 2015 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Aligarh under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, which was allowed on 12 December 2015 and it was directed that 4/6 share of the terminal dues shall be paid to the petitioner and 2/6 share of the terminal dues shall be paid to the respondent no.5-Smt. Nighat Askari. It is also stated that a succession certificate was issued accordingly. The amount, which was directed to be paid to the petitioner, has been paid to her as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The

¶7

dispute now remains only with regard to family pension and its arrears.

¶8

In our opinion, since the Trial Court has already divided the terminal dues between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 as per the share of each claimant, the petitioner will have to seek appropriate remedy from a Court of competent jurisdiction with regard to family pension and arrears of family pension.

¶9

For reasons aforesaid, we do find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order but leave it open to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings with regard to her claim for family pension and arrears of family pension.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 31.8.2018 SK

Smt. Sabiha Askari v. Directorkarmik Prabandhan and Prashasan U.P.P.C.L. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sabiha Askari v. Directorkarmik Prabandhan and Prashasan U.P.P.C.L. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sundar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Veenu Arora Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Satish Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shyam Kishor Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 others