Vidya Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:Â​

“i. Directing the respondents to grant the revised family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 consequent upon the pay revision of the employees w.e.f.

1.1.2006, as per the calculations made at paraÂ11 of the pleadings and further to grant the payment of arrears on account of difference of revised

family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

ii. That in view of relief at (i) above, directing the respondents to grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of payment of difference

on account of enhanced family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till the date of actual paymentâ€​.

When the case was taken up for consideration on 06.07.2020, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the pleadings, this

Court passed the following Order:Â​

“ By way of this writ petition, the relief prayed for by the petitioner is qua issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to grant revised family

pension in her favour w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

A perusal of the reply which has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4 to the writ petition in general and para 4 thereof in particular, inter alia,

demonstrates that the contention of said respondents is that the petitioner was not entitled for revision of family pension as the last basic pay scale of

late Sh. Mani Ram Verma, i.e., the husband of the petitioner was Rs.5800/Â per month as on 01.01.1996 and 30% of the same already stood

sanctioned as pension in favour of the deceased employee on 24.05.1999 and, thus, in terms of letter issued by the respondentÂState Annexure RÂ2,

the case of the petitioner was not covered for the purpose of revision of the pay scale.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be granted some time to rebut said stand taken by respondents No.1 to 4. Let

the needful be positively done within a period of four weeks. As prayed for, list on 11th August, 2020â€​.

Despite opportunity having been granted, no rebuttal to the same has comeÂ​forth on behalf of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, a perusal of the reply which has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4, demonstrates that it stands categorically mentioned in para

4 and 11 thereof , as under:Â​

“4. That the contents of this Para are not admitted being incorrect. It is submitted that the Petitioner had applied for revision of family pension in

terms of HP Govt. letter No. Fin )Pen) A (3)Â1/96 Part IV dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure RÂ2) for revision of family pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and

revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is not applicable in case of the petitioner. As per ParaÂI of the said instructions the family pension shall not be less then

30% of the minimum pay in the revised pay scales introduced w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The last basic pay scale of Late Sh. Mani Ram Verma in the revised

pay scales was Rs.5800/Â PM as on 1.1.1996 and the 30% family pension comes to Rs.1740/Â PM which stand already sanctioned in favour of Late

Sh. Mani Ram Verma vide AGHP letter No.4701Â02 dated 24.05.1999 (Annexure RÂ1), hence no revision was admissible in the instant case and

petitioner was duly informed vide Memo no.202 dated 02.07.2011 by respondent No.4 (Attached as Annexure RÂ3). However, the matter pertains to

respondent No.5 and he can throw much light on the para.

That the contents of the Para are denied being incorrect. It is submitted that the family pension has already been revised to the tune of Rs.3933/

PM w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide AGHP as per fitment table issued vide H.P. Govt. letter No.Fin (Pen) A (3)Â1/09ÂPartÂII dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure

RÂ4), hence the petitioner is not entitled for any further revision. However, the matter pertains to respondent No.5. The respondent No.4 has to

revise the case of family pension/pension in those cases w.e.f. 01.01.2006 who have retired from Govt. Service on or after 01.01.2006. The cases

prior to 01.01.2006 has to be revised by the respondent No.5 i.e. A.G. H.P. Shimla itselfâ€​.

As mentioned above, no rebuttal to the same has been filed by the applicant/petitioner.

In this view of the matter, as this Court is satisfied that petitioner is not entitled for any relief prayed for, as it is amply evident from the reply filed

by respondents No.1 to 4 that needful has already been done by the respondentsÂState, this petition sans merit and is dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.