Smt. Sumitra Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Sabhajeet Yadav,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam Allahabad.

By this petition, the Petitioner has sought relief of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay revised pension and dearness allowance to the Petitioner in pursuance of judgement and order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Moti Lal Agarwal''s case.

The facts in brief are that the husband of the Petitioner namely Krishna Kumar Jaiswal was working as an accountant in Public Works Department in Nagar Nigam Allahabad and had retired on 1.10.1987. The Respondents were providing minimum pension to the husband of the Petitioner till 20.1.1999 as he died on 20.1.1999. After the death of husband of the Petitioner the Respondents are providing minimum pension to the Petitioner from the year 1999. The husband of the Petitioner during his life time had repeatedly approached the authorities of the department for getting his pension and dearness allowance at par with the employees of State Government but the same has not been considered by the Respondents.

In this view of the matter, in the year 1984 Moti Lal Agarwal on behalf of Pensioners Association, Nagar Nigam Allahabad filed Writ Petition No. 15309 of 1984 before this Court and Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.1996 directed the Respondents of the aforesaid case to give pension and dearness allowance to the employees of Nagar Maha Palika Allahabad at par with Nagar Nigam Kanpur and Lucknow and also at par with the employees of State Government.

It is further stated that the husband of the Petitioner had repeatedly requested in his life time for getting revised pension and dearness allowance and after the death of husband of the Petitioner on 20.1.1999 the Petitioner has also continuously requested for payment of family pension and dearness allowance in pursuance of recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission which was implemented since 1.1.1996. The Respondents did not pay any heed upon the grievances of the Petitioner. Thereafter on 13.1.2006 the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Respondent No. 2 ventilating therein about her grievances but no decision has been taken by now by the Respondent No. 2 so far. A true copy of the representation dated 13.1.2006 submitted by the Petitioner is on record as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. Thereafter the Petitioner has submitted several reminders but all has gone in vain. Finding no option the Petitioner has filed instant writ petition before this Court.

A similar controversy came up before this Court in Smt. Qamar Jahan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (2) ESC 977 (All) and by a detailed judgement this Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition with the followings directions:

In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to revise and fix family pension of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Moti Lal Agarwal (supra) within a period of four months and continue to pay current the amount as determined above as and when it falls due. The Petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears of family pension at the rate of 8% with effect from 22.9.2006, i.e., the date of filing of the writ petition till the said amount is paid. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rupees ten thousand payable by Respondents No. 2 and 3.

A special appeal was preferred by Respondents No. 2 and 3 against the aforesaid judgement i.e. Special Appeal No. (618) of 2008, Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Allahabad and another v. Smt. Qamar Jahan and Anr. and the same has been dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgement dated 13.08.2008 confirming the aforesaid judgement in its entirety except the cost which has been reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.

Although learned Counsel for the parties did not dispute that the present writ petition is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment and in Smt. Qamar Jahan (supra). But learned Counsel appearing for Respondents has pointed out that an unreported decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 44402 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Khare and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided by learned Single Judge on 8.8.2011, wherein having regard to the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case the petition was dismissed on the ground of latches.

In given facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment is quite distinguishable from the present case, therefore, can be of no assistance to the case of Respondents.

In the circumstances, for the reasons contained in the judgement of this Court in Smt. Qamar Jahan (supra) this writ petition is also allowed. The Respondents are directed to revise and fix family pension of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Moti Lal Agarwal (supra) within a period of four months and continue to pay current pension as determined above as and when it falls due. The Petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears of family pension at the rate of 8% with effect from 20.11.2006 i.e., the date of filing of the writ petition till the said amount is paid.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.