IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTATANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2021 (SS) OF 2005 Bhagyawati Devi, W/o late Sri Nainram, R/o Village Sailony, Post Sailony, District Pithoragarh. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of U.P., through Secretary Department of Social Welfare Lucknow. 2. Director Social Welfare, State of U.P. 3. Director Social Welfare, State of Uttaranchal. 4. District Social Welfare Officer, District Pithoragarh. …………Respondents. 23.12.2005 Hon’ble Rahesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Both the parties have agreed that let the matter be finally disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner and arrears with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is a widow and her husband was discharged from the Defence Service as he was declared invalid by the Medical Board on 23.08.1964. After discharge from the Defence Service the husband of the petitioner further joined as a Chaukidar / IVth Class employee in Rajkiya Padhati Vidhyalaya (A School run by State Government) at Munsyari in the year, 1976. 2 According to the petitioner, the deceased husband of the petitioner continued to work as a Chaukidar in the aforesaid school till 1982 very honestly and with full dedication. The husband of the petitioner died on 07.08.1982 leaving behind the petitioner and children and the petitioner was given the family pension from the Central Government / Ministry of Defence. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner was given family pension from the department of Social Welfare. The petitioner was given family pension continuously upto 12.09.1991 as she was entitled for the family pension from both the departments in which her deceased husband had served. On 01.01.1992, when the petitioner went to the concerned treasury to take family pension, the authorities refused her to give the family pension without assigning any reasons, which she was drawing earlier every month from the aforesaid treasury. Petitioner has submitted that when she approached the authorities concerned in order to know the reason for not giving her the family pension, no satisfactory answer was given to her by the authorities. Being aggrieved with the action of the authorities concerned, the petitioner approached the respondents from time to time and made various complaints to them verbally and also tried to know the reason as to why she is not being paid the family pension. When she could not get any cogent reason from the respondents side, she made a representation to respondent no. 2 stating therein that the petitioner is the widow of deceased Sri Nainram / her husband and was getting family pension from 08.07.1982 to 12.09.1991, but suddenly her family pension has 3 been stopped by the concerned treasury without any satisfactory reason. Petitioner has submitted that when no reply was given by the respondent no. 2 in respect of her representation, the petitioner further sent a representation stating therein that despite several written complaint and representations, the petitioner is not being paid family pension for the reason why she is not being paid so. Despite several representations sent by the petitioner, the respondents have not given the reply of any of the representations. In view of the above, the respondents no. 1 and 2 are, therefore, directed to consider the payment of the family pension, which the petitioner was drawing and to decide her representation (Annexures No. 3 and 4 to the writ petition) within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Learned Standing Counsel has undertaken that if such a representation has been filed by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously. In view of the above, Writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 23.12.2005 Rathour