ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) The facts of this case have already been noted by this Court in a detailed order dated 18.11.2019, which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:- "1. Heard. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been rejected, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "Jagdish Prasad") along with six others was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01.03.1979. The approval to the appointments had been granted by the Registrar of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya on 20.11.1981, and confirmation order was also passed on 01.01.1984, copies of which are filed as annexure SA 2 annexure SA3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 11.11.2019. It is contended that the Jagdish Prasad and others had been appointed after the services of seven others teachers had been dispensed with. In the year 1985, the seven teachers whose services had been dispensed with filed Writ Petition No. 210 (SS) of 1985 for setting aside of the termination order which writ petition was dismissed on 03.09.1997. Being aggrieved, a Special Appeal No. 304 of 1997 was filed by those seven teachers and through judgment and order dated 02.12.1999, the special appeal was allowed and all those seven persons were directed to be restored back in service. It is also contended that the SLP filed against the judgment of the special appeal was also dismissed. 4. After the judgment of special appeal, the services of Jagdish Prasad along with the six others had been dispensed with sometimes in the year 1999. It is further contended that in the year 2011, the District Inspector of Schools took a decision to adjust Jagdish Prasad and one Sri Kandarb Narayan on two vacancies that had arisen in the institution and this order was reiterated on 02.09.013. When no efforts were made by the respondents for appointing Jagdish Prasad, Writ Petition No. 2595 (SS) 2015 was filed by the petitioner. This Court passed an interim order dated 25.05.2015, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition whereby it was provided that in case there is no interim order in the review petition no. 881 of 2014, the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh shall take appropriate steps to ensure compliance of his own order dated 02.09.2013. It is further contended that in pursuance to the interim order of this Court Jagdish Prasad was permitted to join on 29.11.2015, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition. It is contended that subsequent thereto, Jagdish Prasad, the petitioner's husband retired from service on 30.06.2016 and also died on 06.12.2017. When the family pension was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the respondents which has resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 23.02.2019 by which claim for family pension has been rejected. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 23.02.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for family pension indicates that the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh has considered all the aforesaid aspects of the matter but has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Jagdish Prasad while filing Writ Petition No. 2595 (SS) of 2015 has concealed the fact of the SLP filed against the Division Judgment of this Court in the special appeal having been dismissed, hence the petitioner would not be entitled for any family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there were five persons for whom the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh had indicated through his order dated 02.09.2013 as capable of being adjusted. Of those five persons, the husband of the petitioner has died without getting any family pension and at the same time, Sri Yogeshwar Prasad Tripathi who has retied on attaining the age of superannuation, has been granted pension. It is contended that once a set of employees similarly circumstanced as the husband of the petitioner has been granted pension, consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to not grant family pension to the petitioner upon the death of her husband. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel on the basis of averments contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit contends that though the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh had written two letters dated 05.02.2011 and 23.02.2011 recommending for adjustment of two Assistant Teachers namley Sri Kandarp Narayan Pandey and Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra (husband of the petitioner) yet subsequent thereto upon an examination being made of the said order, the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh vide his letter dated 23.04.2012, a copy of which is annexure CA 2 to the counter affidavit has cancelled the recommendation which was sent earlier on the ground that there is no provision for adjustment/merger of the teacher in the Vishwavidyalaya. It is also contended that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by this Court while passing an interim order on 25.05.2015. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the records the question that comes up is that when a set of similarly circumstanced employees have been granted pension as to whether the claim of the petitioner for family pension can be rejected? However the other question would be that whether pension would be admissible on the basis of the same length of service that is being claimed with respect to the petitioner's husband from 1979 till 1999 which would also be claimed by the other set of employees whose service have been dispensed with in the year 1979 and their termination order have been set aside with judgment and order dated 02.12.1999 passed in special appeal ? 8. Sri Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to address the Court on the aforesaid two issues. 9. In the meanwhile, Sri Mishra may bring on record the order by which the pension has been granted to a similar set of employees as has been contended by him. Sri Mishra would also bring on record the judgment passed in the special appeal dated 02.12.1999 as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court . 10. List this case after two weeks for further hearing."
(3.) Today, Sri Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that certain issues had been framed by this Court in paragraph 7 of the order dated 18.11.2019. He contends that one Sri Ram Sajeevan Tripathi, who had been appointed along with the husband of the petitioner and is also similarly circumstanced, has been granted the benefit of family pension by this Court in Writ Petition No.1880 (SS) of 2013 in re: Ram Sajeevan Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 04.05.2016, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.12.2019. Sri Mishra also contends that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Appeal (Defective) No.423 of 2017 on 05.02.2017 filed by the State against the said judgment. Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Ram Sajeevan Tripathi (supra), Sri Mishra argues that once no challenge was raised to the appointment order of the husband of the petitioner and admittedly the husband of the petitioner worked from 1979 till 1999 and again was permitted to join on 29.11.2015 and thereafter retired from service on 30.06.2016 consequently there cannot be any occasion for not extending the benefit of judgment of Ram Sajeevan Tripathi (supra) to the petitioner also for grant of family pension.;