Disposed

Teki Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Aug 2023CWP/3962/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of family pension due to lack of legal divorce decree. The court disposed of the writ petition after the respondent undertook to issue the pension pay order and remit arrears within specified timelines, acknowledging the petitioner's eligibility based on divorce under local customs and the husband's survivorship.

What did the court decide?

The Pension Pay Order is directed to be issued and pension arrears remitted within the stipulated timelines as per undertaken by respondents.

Teki Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 3962/2023 Decided on: 17.08.2023

¶3

Teki Devi …Petitioner

¶4

Versus State & Ors. ....Respondents.

¶5

………………………………………………………………………… Coram

¶6

Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.

¶7

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶9

This writ petition was filed essentially against the decision dated 09.03.2023 contained in Annexure P-4 issued by respondent No.5 (office of Accountant General) holding that the petitioner was ineligible for family pension.

¶10

Following order was passed in the matter on 02.08.2023:-

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶12

¶13

“Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Tek Ram Sharma and Mr. Anil Kumar God, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, respondent No.5 and respondent No.6, respectively.

¶14

2. Prima facie, the controversy between the parties appears to be very brief. As per the case projected in the writ petition, respondent No.6 was married to two brothers, namely Sh. Hari Singh and Sh. Gop Dass, in the year 1978. On 10.04.2005, Sh. Hari Singh divorced respondent No.6 as per the local customs prevailing in the area. He thereafter married Teki Devi (present petitioner) in the year 2006.

¶15

3. Sh. Hari Singh-petitioner’s husband died in harness on 02.07.2020 while working as Drawing Master in the Education Department. After his death, insurance fund, saving fund, leave encashment, ex-gratia, GPF insurance and final GPF amount were paid to the petitioner as she was made nominee by late Sh. Hari Singh for the terminal benefits. Petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.5 has not sanctioned family pension in her favour only on the ground that there was no valid divorce between late Sh. Hari Singh and respondent No.6 from the Court of Law. Attention was invited to the documents appended at Annexure P-3 (Colly.) including the recommendation made by the office of the Principal of concerned school (page 41 of the paper book) as well as the no objection issued by respondent No.6 herself in favour of the petitioner on 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 also states that he has no objection for release of family pension in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

4. Faced with above, learned counsel for respondent No.5 seeks time to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶17

List on 17.08.2023.”

¶18

During hearing of the case today, learned counsel

¶19

for respondent No.5 submitted that Pension Pay Order (PPO) is

¶20

¶21

being released by the office of Accountant General in favour of the petitioner authorizing her to receive family pension being wife of late Sh. Hari Singh. He further submits that the PPO order will be dispatched to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from today. His statement is taken note of.

¶22

Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that consequent follow up action shall be carried out by respondents No.1 to 4 within two weeks thereafter by remitting the pension arrears/monthly pension in the bank account of the petitioner.

¶23

Since respondent No.5 has now undertaken to issue the Pension Pay Order in favour of the petitioner within 7 days from today & respondents No.1 to 4 have assured release of all monetary benefits including pension & arrears of pension in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter, this writ petition is, therefore, disposed of on the basis of such submissions/assurances. Let the needful be done by the respondents within the time lines indicated by them. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any.

¶24

¶25

Present petition is disposed of with above

¶26

directions. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶28

17^th August, 2023 (rohit)

Teki Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teki Devi v. State of Hp and Others

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

Shashi Kant Vs State of Hp and Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Jaishi Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjogita Rani Vs State of Hp and Another

Pawan Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Sunita Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others