Rani Devi Vs the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 2829 of 2023

Rani Devi, aged about 60 years, Wife of Lachmi Ram, Resident Churi Tola, P.O. and P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and presently residing at C/o Prabhu Basforwa, resident of Village-Garidhura, Bazar, P.O.-Simanbari, P.S.-Garidhura, District-Darziling (West Bengal). … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, Nirman Bhawan, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Central Secretariat, New Delhi, PIN 110001

¶6

Pay and Account Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office (Central Civil Pensions) Government of India, TRKOOT-2, Bhikaji Cama Place, R. K. Puram, New Delhi – 110006, P.O. & P.S. Ram Krishna Puram, New Delhi, PIN-110066

¶7

The Director Central Institute of Psychiatry (CIP), Kanke, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi

¶8

The Administrative Officer, Central Institute of Psychiatry (CIP), Kanke, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi

¶9

Records Officer, Army Medical Corps, AMC Records, Lacknow, PIN – 900450, P.O. & P.S. Lacknow, S. P. Marg (Uttar Pradesh)

¶10

Zila Sainik Kalyan Padadhikari, Zila Sainik Kalyan Karyalaya, Motihari, P.O. & P.S. Motihari, District Motihari … … Respondents Respondents

¶11

… … Respondents Respondents

¶12

---

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC ---

¶15

06/13^th March 2024

¶16

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶17

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“(i) That for issuance of order(s) direction(s), or writ (s) in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) commanding and direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why family pension to the wife of the deceased pensioner Late Lachmi Ram vide P.P.O. No. 213710500591 is not being granted after the death of her husband on dated 25.07.2007 inspite of repeated efforts made by the petitioner.

¶19

(ii) That the petitioner further prays for issuance of an order(s), direction(s) upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting family pension to the Petitioner after the death of her deceased husband Late Lachmi Ram who was receiving pension vide P.P.O. No. 213710500591.

¶20

(iii) That the petitioner further prays for issuance of an order(s), Direction(s) upon the respondents to take decision on the application of

¶21

2

¶22

the petitioner with respect to granting family pension to the petitioner which is pending before the competent authority of the Government. (iv) That the petitioner further prays for payment of family pension from the date of the death of her husband till date and further be pleased to regularized it in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

(v) That petitioner further prays for any other relief(s) as found entitled for under the facts and circumstamces of this case.”

¶24

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Safaiwala and retired from service on 30.11.2003. After retirement, the husband of the petitioner was receiving pension from the office of Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India vide PPO No. 213710500591.

¶25

4. As per the counter-affidavit, the husband of the petitioner was an exserviceman and was appointed/re-employed on the post of Safaiwala at CIP, Ranchi on 25.01.1986 and thereafter he superannuated on 30.11.2003 and expired on 25.07.2007.

¶26

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that sub-rule 13-A and 13-B of Rule 54 of Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was omitted vide Gazette Notification GST No. 938(E) dated 27.12.2012 and this position was also clarified vide Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pensions, New Delhi vide Circular dated 16.01.2013 and therefore the petitioner should have applied for family pension at CIP, Ranchi after issuance of Gazette Notification GST No. 938(E) dated 27.12.2012 and notification dated 16.01.2013, but she has not made such application. The learned counsel submits that if the petitioner approaches the respondent No. 3, appropriate order can be passed.

¶27

6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate order may be passed, so that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was an ex-serviceman and he superannuated on 30.11.2003 from CIP, Ranchi. It further appears that he expired on 25.07.2007.

¶28

8. As per the counter-affidavit, at the time of the retirement of the petitioner’s husband, the prevailing sub-rule 13-A of Rule 54 of Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 prohibited grant of family pension from the civil side to a re-employed military pensioner, if the military pensioner had opted for family

¶29

3

¶30

pension for the military service rendered by him. Similarly, sub-rule 13-B of Rule 54 of Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 prohibited grant of two-family pensions to a person who was already in receipt of Family Pension or was eligible, therefore, under any other rules of the Central Government of a State Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Local Fund under the Central or a State Government.

¶31

9. However, the said provisions have been omitted vide Gazette Notification dated 27.12.2012 followed by subsequent notification dated 16.01.2013, whose details have been mentioned in the counter-affidavit and therefore a stand has been taken by the respondents that the petitioner has to approach the respondent No. 3 for redressal of her grievances.

¶32

10. In view of the materials which have been placed on record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is required to be taken care of by the respondent No. 3 and no adverse order as such has been placed on record before this Court.

¶33

11. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 3 by filing a representation along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order with all supporting documents within a period of 30 days from today.

¶34

12. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 3 shall do the needful and pass a reasoned order in connection with claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the representation. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through speed-post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 13. If any admissible dues is found payable to the petitioner arising out of the reasoned order, the respondent No. 3 shall also take steps, so that the admissible dues is paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the reasoned order.

¶35

14. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶36

15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶37

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶38

Mukul

Rani Devi v. the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Devi v. the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jiblal Mahato Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Badri Nath Roy Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through MD Shabir Ansari Vs Balki Devi