Allowed¶7

State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Mohini Devi

Uttarakhand HC17 Mar 2025SPA/121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension claim; Triple Benefit Scheme; Modified Pension Scheme 1978; exercise of option; Government Order dated 17.12.1965 paragraph 24; WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 disapproved by Division Bench; SPA No. 25 of 2004 / WPS No. 25 of 2004 (24.08.2005); Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, WPSS No. 557 of 2010, judgment dated 23.04.2013; writ court's failure to consider binding Division Bench judgment; impugned order dated 05.04.2017 in WPSS No. 249 of 2007 set aside; special appeal (SPA) allowed; remand to Single Judge for fresh decision; Uttarakhand High Court, 2025:UHC:1809-DB.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal allowed; impugned order dated 05.04.2017 set aside; matter remitted to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh. ¶7

State of Uttarakhand Vs Smt. Mohini Devi — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Special appeal allowed; impugned order dated 05.04.2017 set aside; matter remitted to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.04.2017, whereby the writ petition was allowed in terms of WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 without considering the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 having been disapproved by the Division Bench), is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

On the sole ground that the writ court did not consider the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and relied upon the judgment in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, which was disapproved by the Division Bench, the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The special appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh.

¶7

Key takeaways

The substantive question of the respondent's entitlement to the benefit of the Modified Pension Scheme was not decided by this Court; it is left to be determined by the Single Judge on remand.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court, Division Bench (Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Ashish Naithani, JJ.), SPA No. 121 of 2018, decided 17.03.2025. Intra-court appeal by the State of Uttarakhand against the Single Judge's order dated 05.04.2017 in WPSS No. 249 of 2007, whereby the respondent's writ petition claiming family pension was allowed in terms of the judgment in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 (upheld by the Division Bench in SPA No. 25 of 2004), Annexure No. 3 dated 26.08.2004 was quashed, and release of family pension within eight weeks was directed. The State argued, relying on the judgment dated 23.04.2013 in WPSS No. 557 of 2010 (Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others), that the respondent's husband had opted for the Triple Benefit Scheme introduced vide Government Order dated 17.12.1965 and had never exercised option for the Modified Pension Scheme introduced in 1978. Holding that the writ court had failed to consider the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Mohini Pandy and had relied on WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, which stood disapproved by the Division Bench, the Court set aside the impugned order on this sole ground, allowed the special appeal, and remitted the matter to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh; the entitlement question remained open.

¶1

2025:UHC:1809-DB

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			SPA No. 121 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
			1. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand- appellant. 2. Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. This intra-court appeal is directed against the final order dated 05.04.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 249 of 2007. By the said order, writ petition, filed by the respondent, was decided in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, which was upheld by Division Bench in SPA No. 25 of 2004. The order dated 05.04.2017, impugned in this writ petition, is extracted below:- “Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present_lis_is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 on 21.01.2004, upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 25 of 2004 on 24.08.2005. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure No. 3 dated 26.08.2004 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to release family pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

¶3

2025:UHC:1809-DB

¶4

Learned State Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the judgment dated 23.04.2013 rendered in WPSS No. 557 of 2010 (Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others), the writ petition filed by respondent could not have been allowed, inasmuch as, husband of the respondent had opted for Triple Benefit Scheme introduced vide Government Order dated 17.12.1965, but he had never exercised option for benefit of Modified Pension Scheme, as introduced in 1978. He, thus, submits that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Modified Pension Scheme, as introduced in 1978. Para 3 of the said judgment, relied by the State Counsel, is extracted below:-

¶5

“3. The fact remains that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said judgment, inasmuch as by that judgment paragraph 24 of the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 was not quashed, but was quashed only for Smt. Parvati Pandey. Nothing has been shown in the instant writ petition, why paragraph 24 of the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 should be interfered with by the Court. The fact remains that at the time when the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 was issued, the husband of the petitioner was not covered by the Scheme, under which an employee is entitled to the benefit of the provident fund and pension-cum-family pension until death. The Government, accordingly, introduced a benefit scheme for those employees by the said Government Order. Later, in 1978, the Government gave an option to all those employees by the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 to opt for provident fund and pension-cumfamily pension until death. The husband of the petitioner chose not to opt for the same. Petitioner, the wife of the employee, now cannot contend that paragraph 24 of the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 is at all interferable since her husband never thought that the same is interferable.”

¶6

2025:UHC:1809-DB

¶7

Since the writ court has not considered the judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and has relied upon the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, which was disapproved by Division Bench, therefore, on this sole ground the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.03.2025 Aswal

¶8

2025:UHC:1809-DB

State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Mohini Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Mohini Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandan Singh Nagniyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhole Shankar Vs Union of India

Managing Director Uttarakhand Vs Brijmohan

Rajesh Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dr. Pallavi Patni Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suresh Kumar Vs Union of India