MOHINI PANDY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State and Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant family pension. THE facts, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner's husband died on 24.09.1988. A family pension was provided to the petitioner for a period of 10 years, which was stopped thereafter, pursuant to Clause 24 of the Government Order dated 17.12.1965. Clause 24 of the Government Order was questioned in Writ Petition No.7212 of 2001 (S/S) Smt. Parvati Pandey vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., which was allowed by a judgment dated 21.01.2004. Clause 24 of the Government Order dated 17.12.1965, in so far as it related to the petitioner, was quashed and the respondents were directed to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner. THE said order was challenged by the State of Uttaranchal and Director of Education (Basic) in Special Appeal No.25 of 2004, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 24.08.2005. It has also been stated at the bar that pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner in the said writ petition started receiving family pension again, and upon coming to know of this fact, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a similar relief.
While hearing the writ petition, the learned counsel for the State of U.P., Smt. Beena Pandey pointed out that a similar controversy arose in another Writ Petition No.187 of 2003 (M/B) Smt. Tulsi Devi Pande vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., wherein the Division Bench, by a judgment dated 03.07.2006, while considering the proviso to Clause 24 of the Government Order dated 17.12.1965, has denied the said petitioner the relief of family pension after the expiry of 10 years.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there are two divergent views of the Court. One passed by the learned Single Judge, which judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench and another judgment by another Division Bench, and consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the issue is required to be sorted out by a Larger Bench.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the Court directs the Registry to place the papers of the case before The Chief Justice for reference of the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the correctness of the decision of the judgment dated 21.01.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.7212 of 2001 (S/S) Smt. Parvati Pandey vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., as affirmed by the decision of the Division Bench dated 24.8.2005 passed in Special Appeal No.25 of 2004, State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Smt. Parvati Pandey vis--vis the decision of the Division Bench dated 03.07.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.187 of 2003 (M/B) Smt. Tulsi Devi Pande vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. While considering the correctness of the aforesaid decisions, the Larger Bench may also consider as to whether Clause 24 of the Government Order dated 17.12.1965 is ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.