- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER, Shri Daya Shankar Tiwari was a class IV employee of B. S. A. Y Inter College, Gola, Gorakhpur, which is a recognised institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. Shri Daya Shankar Tiwari was appointed on 6-12-51 and he died on 20-11-87 while in service. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 24-2-89 providing for the benefit of family pension to non-teaching employees of State aided Junior High Schools and High Secondary institutions run by U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. The aforesaid scheme providing for the benefit of family pension under the aforesaid Government order was made applicable with effect from 1-1-1989. The petitioner's claim for family pension under the aforesaid Government order dated 24-2-89 has been rejected by the Joint Director of Education vide its order dated 1-3-97 on the ground that petitioner's husband died on 20-11- 87 le. before 1-1-1989. The issue in the writ petition thus is as to whether the petitioner whose husband died on 20-11-87 is entitled for the benefit of Government order dated 24-2-1989. The petitioner in the writ petition has relied on a judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 24-2-89 in Writ Petition No. 34835 of 1995 ; Mahmooda Begiim (Annexure 3) to the writ petition. The aforesaid judgment squarely covers the controversy involved in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner has further relied on another judgment and order dated 25-9-97 in Writ Petition No. 23609 of 1995 ; Smt. Akhtari Begum v. Director of Education. THE aforesaid judgment again takes the view as above. In both the aforesaid judgments this Hon'ble Court relying on earlier judgment of this Court held that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of family pension even though her husband died prior to 1-1-1989. In view of the above two judgment of this Hon'ble Court petitioner has clearly made out a case for grant of relief prayed for. The Standing Counsel has filed a counter-affidavit on the aforesaid two judgments of this Hon'ble Court referred to above in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit no fact has been submitted as to why the aforesaid judgments be not followed by this Court.;