Disposed

Km Nishtha Pal (Minor) and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2023WRIA/6860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that minor children are entitled to family pension if they reside with the natural mother who remarried, per Government Order dated 04.09.1992. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioners to file a representation and the District Basic Education Officer to decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun to pass appropriate orders on the petitioners' representation for grant of family pension within one month.

Km Nishtha Pal (Minor) and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101687

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6860 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Km Nishtha Pal (Minor) And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deena Nath,Deepak Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Deena Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent and Sri Krishan Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶7

The petitioners, who are a minor girls, have preferred this writ petition through her natural mother, Smt. Archana Pal, for the relief of grant of family pension in their name consequent to the death of their father, who is stated to have died in harness on2.4.2020 while working as Assistant Teacher, Igui Madhavgarh, Block Nadigaon, District Jalaun. It is admitted fact that the natural mother of the petitioner has remarried consequent to the death of her husband.

¶8

Sri Deena Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court to a Government Order dated 04.09.1992, which relates to the benefits that accrue to a Government Servant consequent to his death. The attention of this Cour has been invited to the heading of family pension, wherein it has been provided that consequent to the death of the Government Servant, if the spouse entered into remarriage, the spouse will not stand entitled to the family pension, however, the family pension shall be transferred to the children and in the event the children are minors and resides with the parents after remarriage, the parents to continue to function as their natural guardian.

¶9

In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are residing with her natural mother, who has entered into remarriage with her real brother-in-law, Sri Shashank Bhushan. The factum that the petitioner is residing with her natural mother has not been disputed by Sri Krishan Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶10

In the opinion of the Court the petitioner satisfies the

¶11

conditions as laid down in the Government Order dated 04.09.1992 and is entitled to family pension in her name.

¶12

At this juncture, Sri Krishan Kumar Chand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by requiring the District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun, to pass appropriate orders as regards grant of family pension in the name of the petitioners.

¶13

This Court is also of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and it is, accordingly, disposed of by requiring the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation for grant of family pension in her name within two weeks from today.

¶14

In the eventuality of such a representation being filed by the petitioners before the District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun, it is expected that the District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun, shall pass appropriate orders thereon in terms of the Government Order referred to above and taking into consideration that the mother of the petitioners is the natural guardian. The decision shall be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of service of a certified copy of this order.

¶15

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and it shall be open for the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km Nishtha Pal (Minor) and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km Nishtha Pal (Minor) and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Nandan Gautam Vs Central Bank of India and 3 Others

Mayank Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagirathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Alka Sahu and 27 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunita Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others