Allowed

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/1797/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow challenged rejection of her claim for family pension after her husband, a Non-Medical Attendant, died; another claimant had also sought the pension but expired. Holding the petitioner the only surviving widow under Rule 7 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, the court quashed the rejecting order and directed payment within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed to the extent of denying family pension; respondent no. 2 directed to pay family pension to petitioner within two months.

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20283

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1797 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Saiyada Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel.

¶7

With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is decided at the admission stage.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 2, Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P whereby rejected the representation of the petitioner for payment of post retiral dues and family pension to the petitioner after the demise of her husband late Wakil Ahmad, who was working on the post of NonMedical Attendant (NMA) under the Medical and Health Services.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that after the demise of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner has moved an application for payment of post retiral dues and the family pension.

¶10

Before the decision could be taken on the representation of the petitioner, one Akhtar Nisha (now no more), had moved an application for the payment of family pension and other post retiral dues alleging herself to be the wife of late Wakil Ahmad.

¶11

It is further submitted that respondent no. 2, had rejected the claim of both the claimants as the dispute of succession is pending between the parties before the Competent Court of law and also rejected the prayer for grant of family pension.

¶12

It is further submitted that as far as the post retiral dues are concerned, learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that he is challenging the impugned order to the extent whereby the family pension has been denied, which is against Rule 7 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 whereby it has been provided that after the demise of a government servant, the family pension will be given to the surviving spouse of the employee and in case there are two

¶13

widow claimants, in that case, the eldest surviving widow would be entitled for sanction of family pension.

¶14

It is further submitted that the alleged second wife, late Akhtar Nisha had already expired in the year 2021 and the death certificate is enclosed as Annexure No. 5 to the present writ petition. Hence, now only surviving widow of late Wakil Amad is the petitioner and she is entitled for the family pension as per Rule 7 of the Rules 1961.

¶15

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the post retiral dues cannot be paid without there being determination of legal heir by the competent court of law, but unable to dispute or distinguish the position which emerges out from Rule 7 of the Rules, 1961.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the records of the case, the position which emerges out is that the petitioner is the only surviving widow of late Wakil Ahmad and as per Rule 7 of the Rules 1961, the family pension would be sanctioned/granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

As per Rule 7, the first right is of a surviving widow if the deceased was a male ofÏcer or to the husband if the deceased was a female employee for grant of family pension.

¶18

For convenience, Rule 7(4) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 is quoted herein below:-

¶19

"Except as may be provided by a nomination under subrule (5)

¶20

(a) a pension sanctioned under this Part shall be granted-

¶21

(i) to the eldest surviving widow, if the deceased was a male ofÏcer or to the husband, if the deceased was a female ofÏcer.

¶22

(ii) failing the widow or husband, as the case may be, to the eldest surviving son;

¶23

(iii) failing (i) and (ii) above, to the eldest surviving unmarried daughter;

¶24

(iv) these failing, to the eldest widowed daughter; and

¶25

(b) in the event of pension not becoming payable under Clause (a) the pension may be granted -

¶26

(i) to the father;

¶27

(ii) failing the father, to the mother;

¶28

(iii) failing the father and mother both, to the eldest

¶29

surviving brother below the age of 18

¶30

(iv) these failing, to the eldest surviving unmarried sister;

¶31

(v) these failing (i) to (iv) above, to the children of a predeceased son in the order it is payable to the children of the deceased ofÏcer under clause (a) (ii), (iii), and (iv), above.

¶32

Note:- The expression "eldest surviving widow" occurring in Clause (a) (i) above, should be construed with reference to the seniority according to the date of marriage with the ofÏcer and not with reference to the age of the surviving widow."

¶33

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made herein above, the writ petition is allowed .

¶34

The impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2 is hereby quashed to the extent of rejecting the grant of family pension to the petitioner.

¶35

The respondent no. 2 is directed to ensure the payment of family pension to the petitioner, who is the surviving widow of late Wakil Ahmad within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is produced.

¶36

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 DiVYa

¶37

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girish Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Milk Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Guard Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Deshraj Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue,, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Mamta Gautam Vs Principal Secy.Governor Sectt. Lucknow and Ors.

Phoolmati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Chandrawati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health. Lko. and 2 Others