Kanti Kumari Khatri vs The Rajendra Agricultural University

Rekha M. Doshit, C.J.—This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by one Miss Kanti Kumari Khatri, daughter of late Mathura Prasad, a Field Overseer in the respondent-Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as ''the University'') for recovery of the amount of family pension admissible to the petitioner.

The aforesaid Mathura Prasad, a Field Overseer in the University, on reaching the age of superannuation retired from service on 31st January 1993. Since his retirement he passed away on 18th February 2002. The petitioner claims that at the time of death of her father Mathura Prasad, the petitioner was less than 25 years of age and was entitled to family pension till she reached the age of 25 years. The University however failed to pay the family pension to the petitioner till she reached the age of 25 years. A lumpsum of more than Rs. Two lakhs was paid on 21st April 2010. The petitioner, therefore, claims arrears of family pension and the interest @18% per annum for delay in payment of the amount of family pension.

The petitioner''s claim for family pension is not disputed. Learned advocate Dr. A K Upadhyay appears for the University. He has submitted that under the then prevalent Rule, the age of payment of family pension was 21 years. It was later on enhanced to 25 years. Because of the later enhancement of the age, the petitioner was paid the difference in amount of pension of more than Rs. Two lakhs on 21st April 2010. Since then there was upward revision of pay to the employees and pension to the retired employees of the University on account of 6th Pay Revision. The petitioner became entitled to some additional amount of pension. A sum of more than Rs. 23,000/- was, therefore, paid to her pending this Petition in October 2014.

Thus it appears that the entire amount of family pension payable to the petitioner has now been paid. The delay has occurred on account of enhancement of the age admissible for family pension and the later upward revision in the rate of pension. It is not established before me that the University was lackadaisical in sanctioning and allowing the payment of family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to interest as claimed by her. However, in lieu of interest for the delay, if any and by way of cost of the Petition the petitioner is allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). The University will pay the amount to the petitioner within one month from today.

The Registry will send copy of this judgment to the respondent nos. 1 and 3 forthwith.

Subject to the above direction, the Petition stands disposed of.