HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 234(M/S)2001 (Old No. 8815/1996) Smt. Munni Devi W/o late Raja Ram, R/o Salempur Rajputan, District Hardwar. ---- Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2. Principal, Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee (U.P.), 3. Director of Education, Technical Education, Kanpur. ----Respondents. Sri Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to pass suitable orders in the petitioner’s case and decide the matter as soon as possible, ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to pay the pension to the petitioner in accordance with the G.O. dated 15.12.1993 and 26.06.1995 (annexure 1 & 4) to the writ petition, iii. Such order and further writ, order or direction be passed as the petitioner be found entitled in law in the facts and circumstances of the case, iv. Costs of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the husband of the petitioner late Sri Raja Ram was an employee, as peon, at Kanhaiyalal, Polytechnic, Roorkee served the Institution from 06.07.1963 to 02.03.1987. The said Institution is an Institution running under grant-in-aid. Late Raja Ram suffered from cancer. When his medical leaves were exhausted and no leaves were due towards his credit, he was forced to resign from his services on 02.07.1987. Lateron he died in the month of October 1987. At the relevant time, the pension scheme was not applicable the employees of aided Polytechnic Institutions. 4. On 15th December 1993, the respondents issued a G.O. granting benefit of pension in respect of those persons who were employees of Govt. Aided Polytechnic Instuitions and retired from service, after 05.10.1982. Through the above G.O. it was also provided to given benefit of pension to those employees who were retired after 05.10.1982 or have been expired after their retirement w.e.f. 05.10.1982. By the aforesaid G.O., the employees were directed to opt, within time, for obtaining pension benefits. The petitioner who is widow of late Raja Ram, submitted her option on 02.03.1994 for the pensionery benefit and also submitted reminders thereof lateron. In the meantime, in 1995, the State Govt. exempted the dependants of retired persons from depositing their share money. Ultimately, when the respondents paid no heed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In para-4 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that late Raja Ram was employed in Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee from 06.07.1963 to 2nd of March 1987. He submitted his resignation on health ground, which was considered and accepted on the same day. Lateron he expired in the month of 3 October 1987. In his letter of resignation, late Raja Ram also requested that his son may be employed in the Institution. Though, his son was not entitled for employment however sympathetic consideration, the son of late Raja Ram was also provided employment and since then he is working as Peon in the Institution. 6. Since the G.O. dated 15th December 1993, and G.O. dated 26th June 1995 provide benefit of pension to the employees or the dependents of the employees who were retired after 5th October 1982 or have expired after retirement, therefore, the G.Os. are not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner’s husband voluntarily submitted his resignation on 02.03.1987. 7. From the perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner was informed that she is not entitled for pensionery benefit under the aforesaid G.Os. dated 15th December 1993 & 26th June 1995 on the ground that it is not a case of retirement, as the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation from service which was accepted. 8. I find force in the submissions made by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 9. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. According, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) May 9, 2006: NCM: