Allowed¶20

State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Khasti Devi

Uttarakhand HC10 Sept 2025SPA/147/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal No.147 of 2018, High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (DB), decided 10.09.2025 [2025:UHC:8044-DB] — family pension claim of Smt. Khasti Devi; whether ratio of Smt. Parvati Pandey (Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001, decided 21.01.2004, Government Order quashed qua petitioner therein alone) extends to other claimants; held it does not; appeal allowed, Single Judge's judgment dated 12.04.2017 set aside, writ petition remanded for fresh decision after hearing; reference to Smt. Jeewanti Devi (Writ Petition (M/B) No.445 of 2002, decided 28.10.2004).

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 set aside; matter remanded to the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. ¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 set aside; matter remanded to the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the ratio of the judgment in Smt. Parvati Pandey (Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001, decided 21.01.2004) could be made applicable to the writ petitioner (Smt. Khasti Devi), who was not the petitioner in that case, so as to sustain the Single Judge's impugned judgment.

¶17

Court's answer

The ratio of the judgment in Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra) cannot be made applicable to any person other than the petitioner of that writ petition, because in that case the Government Order was quashed qua the petitioner of that case alone; therefore, interference in the instant appeal is warranted.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand (Division Bench: Ravindra Maithani & Alok Mahra, JJ.; oral judgment by Ravindra Maithani, J.), Special Appeal No.147 of 2018, decided 10.09.2025 [2025:UHC:8044-DB]. The State appealed against the Single Judge's judgment dated 12.04.2017 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2151 of 2016 (Smt. Khasti Devi), by which the writ petition seeking family pension and arrears w.e.f. 09.01.1988 with interest was decided solely on the footing that the lis was covered by the Coordinate Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001 (Smt. Parvati Pandey, decided 21.01.2004). Held: the ratio of Smt. Parvati Pandey cannot be made applicable to any person other than the petitioner of that writ petition, since in that case the Government Order was quashed qua that petitioner alone; accordingly the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to the Writ Court for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Counsel for the writ petitioner had conceded non-coverage by Smt. Parvati Pandey and had invoked the judgment dated 28.10.2004 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.445 of 2002 (Smt. Jeewanti Devi), an aspect not discussed in the impugned judgment.

¶1

2025:UHC:8044-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Special Appeal No.147 of 2018

¶4

State of Uttarakhand and others ….. Appellants

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Smt. Khasti Devi and another ……Respondents

¶7

Presence:

¶8

Mr. Rahul Verma, learned Addl. A.G. for the State/appellants. Mr. S.K. Shah, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. I. D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh/respondent no.2.

¶9

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

¶10

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶11

Challenge in this Special Appeal is made to the judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2151 of 2016, Smt. Khasti Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶12

Respondent no.1 (the writ petitioner) filed the writ petition seeking family pension, its arrears w.e.f. 09.01.1988 with interest admissible as per law. By the impugned order, the petition was decided by the Court holding that the lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001, decided on 21.01.2004.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State submits that Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001, Smt. Parvati Pandey Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, was decided by this Court on 21.01.2004 and, in that case, a Government Order was quashed, so far as it relates to petitioner in that case and, thereafter, respondents in that case were directed to release the family pension.

¶15

¶16

2025:UHC:8044-DB

¶17

It is argued that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra) cannot be made applicable to any other person except the petitioner of that writ petition and the instant writ petition could not have been decided based on the judgment dated 21.01.2004 passed in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra).

¶18

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that, in fact, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 28.10.2004 of this Court passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No.445 of 2002, Smt. Jeewanti Devi Vs. State and Others. He submits that this aspect has not been discussed in the impugned judgment. He fairly concedes that the case of the writ petitioner is not covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra).

¶19

The impugned order is based on the judgment passed on 21.01.2004, in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra), but the ratio of the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra), as stated, cannot be made applicable to any other person, because in that case, a Government Order was quashed qua the petitioner of that case alone, therefore, an interference is warranted in the instant appeal.

¶20

The appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶21

(Alok Mahra, J.) 10.09.2025

¶22

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.09.2025

¶23

¶24

BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.15 15:32:38 +05'30'

State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Khasti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Khasti 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Ashish Vs Union of India

Shri Naresh Kumar (Old Cp No. 137) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kanhai Beragi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandar Singh Pawar Vs Smt Sushila

Gauri Vs Ayush Agarwal

Nomika Vs Umesh Kumar Saini