HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3770 of 2001 (M/S) Old No. 11178 of 1996 Smt. Parwati Devi w/o Jai Dutt Chaudhari C/o Sri Pramod Chandra Chaudhari, Treasury Office Dev Prayag, District Tehri Garhwal ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of U.P. through Joint Secretary, Finance Anubhag-3, U.P. Lucknow 2. Treasury Officer, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal ………….. Respondents Sri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sobhit Saharia for the petitioner Standing counsel for the respodents. Dated: 25.2.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sobhit Saharia for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner along with its arrears. Briefly stated the husband of the petitioner namely Sri Jai Dutt Chaudhari was posted as Tehsildar at Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal. He died on 1.1.1956 while he was in service. At that time there was no provision of family pension, therefore, the petitioner could not get family pension but later on the Government issued G.O. No. Sa-3-969/Das-923/85 dated 8th August 1986, outlining the policy decision for 2 granting family pension benefits to the family of those Government Servants who died in harness or after retirement prior to 1.4.1965. The petitioner moved an application to the respondent no. 2 along with prescribed form vide letter-dated 13.3.1992 and thereafter made several representations to the respondents but the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner. The respondents filed counter affidavit and have submitted that the husband of the petitioner was not Government servant in view of G.O. dated 8.8.96 and he does not come under the scheme of Pension and Family Pension as contained in G.O. dated 8.8.96. The husband of the petitioner was working in cash Department as Tehsildar on contract basis. His service book was not prepared and maintained in the office of the respondent. Detailed certification and pay registers of the year 1953 and 1954 relating to the petitioner’s husband was sent to the Uttar Pradesh Government in compliance of the order dated 17.9.1996. The respondents further submitted that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1956 much before the cut of date i.e. 1.1.1981 according to G.O. dated 8.8.1996 and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension. The petitioner has filed G.O. No. 3-960/X-925/85 dated August 8, 1986, the subject of the said G.O. is quoted below: fo’k;% ubZ ikfjokfjd isa”ku ;kstuk ƒ‹ˆ‡ dh izlqfo/kk dks ,sls ljdkjh lsodksa ds ifjokjksa dks vuqeU; djkuk tks fnukad … ƒ&… &ƒ‹ˆ‡ dks vFkok mlds iwoZ lsok fuo`Rr@fnoaxr gks pqds gksa vFkok ftuds ifjokj miZ;qDr lDhe ƒ‹ˆ‡ ds vUrZxr ikfjokfjd isa”ku ikus ds ik= ugha gSaA Thus the language used in the subject of abovementioned G.O. clearly shows that the provisions made for family pension by virtue of that Govt. Order are applicable to the Government 3 servant who retired or expired by or before 31.3.1965. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1956, thus this G.O. is applicable to the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the provisions made under G.O. dated 8th August 1986, within two months after obtaining the certified copy of this order and if she is found entitled for family pension, the same be paid to her within one month thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Dated: 25.2.2006 Rajesh Tandon, J. *Dhyani