Allowed

Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024/5357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking family pension for the petitioner, the wife of a deceased departmental employee. The Court held that the possession of a succession certificate issued by a competent civil court precludes the department from denying the benefit of family pension.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation with documents; respondent to decide within two months.

Smt. Prema Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48803

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5357 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Prema Devi

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Madhav Shukla,Rajendra Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Krishna Madhav Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶9

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-

¶10

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.2 to sanction and grant family pension to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.2 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 29.04.2024 in accordance with law."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that husband of the petitioner, who was serving on the post of Seenchparyavekshak in the Department of Irrigation at Barabanki died on 28.10.2018. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, she applied for all admissible dues for which a wife may be entitled including the family pension. She produced the death certificate as well as succession certificate being issued from the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Nawabganj, Barabanki and succession certificate being issued by the competent Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.13, Barabanki, which have been enclosed as Annexures No.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition. The aforesaid benefits have not been paid to the petitioner as the Executive Engineer concerned has issued a letter dated 25.05.2024 apprising that her late husband had given one affidavit to the Department saying that there is no one in his family to receive the pension etc., therefore, as per the Department, since the late employee had not nominated anyone to get or receive the family pension etc., so the same has not

¶13

been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 680 , and of this Court in re; Smt. Sheela Singh Vs. Union of India, Service Bench No.440 of 2014, dated 03.07.2017 , Smt. Savitri Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ-A No.43169 of 2017 dated 24.09.2019 and Rajni Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-A No.11483 of 2023, dated 11.01.2024, submitting that if the claimant/ dependant/ successor has filed the succession certificate, which has been issued by the competent Civil Court, before the competent Departmental Authority, then the benefit of family pension etc. may not be denied to the dependant/ successor.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the aforesaid settled proposition of law and has also stated that this issue has been considered by this Court in various cases and passed appropriate orders in favour of the dependants/ successors.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Shipra Sengupta (supra) as well as various decisions of this Court referred above, I am of the view that the petitioner, who is having succession certificate from the competent court of law, may not be denied the benefit of family pension etc.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶17

The petitioner shall prefer a fresh representation before opposite party no.2 i.e. Executive Engineer, Barabanki Prakhand, Sharda Nahar, Barabanki enclosing therewith all relevant documents, which are necessary for grant of family pension etc. alongwith certified copy of this order and opposite party no.2 shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner granting her family pension etc., strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation and thereafter communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 19.7.2024 RBS/-

¶20

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

Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Daud Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Smt. Nisha Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Police Service) Lko. and 3 Others

Aman and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Prashant Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civilsectt. Lko and 7 Others

Sunil Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others