Sabha Khatoon vs State of U.P.& Ors.

D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.D. Rai for respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.

This petition is directed against the order dated 2582001 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.

Balika Primary Pathshala, Kutuapura in District Mau is a Junior High School run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The husband of the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the said institution since 1973 died in harness on 771979. Her claim for family pension was rejected vide order dated 2132001 but it was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No. 19774 of 2001 and a learned Single Judge vide its order and judgment dated 1872001 quashing the said order holding that even though an employees dies prior to 1981, his widow would be entitled to family pension and remanded the matter to be considered afresh in the light of the Government orders dated 3131982 and 1661984. The claim has again been rejected holding that at the time of his death, the husband of the petitioner was not eligible for any benefits including pension etc. and therefore, she is not entitled to family pension.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the Government Orders dated 3131982 and 1661984 the petitioner is entitled to family pension and in support thereof he has presented into service the ratio rendered in the case of Musammat Sajida Begum v. Secretary, Basic Education & Ors., 2002(1) ESC 370.

The provision for pension, provident fund etc. for such employees of Basic Schools as the husband of the petitioner, was governed by Government Orders dated 1101964 and 17121965 (commonly known as the Triple Benefit Scheme). On demands being raised by the employees for grant of pension proportionate to that given to Government employees, the State Government issued a Government order dated 831978 providing that those employees who are covered by the Triple Benefit Scheme and retire after 131977 would be entitled to only pension, but no family pension or gratuity, provided they opt for it and the employers share as deposited under the Triple Benefit Scheme is transferred under the relevant revenue head of the State Government whereafter they would be entitled to pension. The said Government order was followed by the Government order dated 3131982 wherefor the first time the benefit of family pension was extended to those employees who earlier were covered by the Triple Benefit Scheme and had opted for the pension scheme and this Family Pension Scheme was made effective from 1101981. By a clarificatory Government order dated 1661984 it was clarified that family pension would also be paid to those employees who had died prior to 1101981 but it would be paid from 1101981 itself and not prior to that date. There is no averment in the writ petition nor the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that her husband was covered by the Triple Benefit Scheme. Obviously this could not be so because an employee was entitled to the benefit under the Triple Benefit Scheme having rendered 20 years continuous service but the husband of the petitioner, admittedly, did not render 20 years continuous service. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the husband of the petitioner had opted for the pension scheme after the cut off date of 131977. The ratio laid down in Musammat Sajida Begum''s case (supra) would not apply to the present facts. In Musammat Sajida Begum''s case (supra) the facts were that her husband was extended the benefit of the Triple Benefit Scheme and after the introduction of the pension scheme he was also extended the said benefit and after his death family pension was also being paid to his widow which was stopped lateron on the premise that her husband had died prior to 1101981. Obviously the widow was entitled to the benefit of the Government Orders dated 831978 read with 3131982 and the clarificatory Government Order dated 1661984. Thus, the ratio of Musammat Sajida Begum''s case would not apply in the present case.

For the reasons given above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.