State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Smt. Phoolwati & Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Delay in filing the appeal is not opposed and is, therefore, condoned.

Heard Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ appellants and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and, with their consent, the present appeal is disposed of at this stage.

This appeal is preferred by the respondent in WPSS No. 894 of 2014 aggrieved by the order passed therein by the learned Single Judge on 05.03.2018. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner had lost her husband in the year 1988; she was granted family pension for a period of ten years but, thereafter, abruptly the same was stopped on the basis of G.O. dated 17.12.1965; and the validity of the said G.O. dated 17.12.1965 was considered by this Court in 2004 (1) U.D. 603 in the matter of 'Smt. Parwati Pande Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others' (WPSS No. 7212 of 2001) dated 21.01.2004. While allowing the writ petition, and quashing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of family pension, in view of the judgment in Smt. Parwati Pande Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (WPSS No. 7212 of 2001), within ten weeks.

Shri C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ appellants, would submit that, subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court, in WPSS No. 557 of 2010 dated 23.04.2013, had noted that the judgment in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, whereby the paragraph 24 of the G.O. dated 17.12.1965 was quashed, was only with respect to the petitioner therein i.e. Smt. Parvati Pandey; and paragraph 24 of the G.O. dated 17.12.1965 had not been quashed in general.

Shri, C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, would submit that, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in WPSS No. 557 of 2010 dated 23.04.2013, the order under appeal, whereby the appellant-respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's case in the light of WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 dated 01.2004, must be set aside.

It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 557 of 2010 dated 23.04.2013 took note of the judgment of this Court in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 dated 21.01.2004, and held that paragraph 24 of G.O. dated 17.12.1965 was quashed therein only with respect to the petitioner, and the said judgment could not be construed as having quashed paragraph 24 of the said G.O. with respect to others also.

We see no reason, however, to undertake the task of examining whether the respondent-writ petitioner's case would stand on par with that of the petitioner in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 or with the petitioner in WPSS No. 557 of 2010. Suffice it, therefore, to modify the order under appeal and direct the appellant-respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, for grant of family pension, taking note of the judgments of this Court in Smt. Parwati Pande Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (judgment in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001dated 21.01.2004), and Smt. Mohini Pandey Vs. State of Uttarakhand (WPSS No.557 of 2010 dated 23.04.2013), with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant shall pass a reasoned order, and communicate the same to the respondent-writ petitioner. In case the respondent- writ petitioner is held entitled to family pension, the appellant-respondent shall then consider granting her the said benefit at the earliest.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.