- (1.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband Late Prem Chandra Agarwal, who was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department, Government of U.P. had attained the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years and retired on 30.11.1997. The process for payment of retiral dues of petitioner's husband had been completed before his retirement and accordingly his pension papers were submitted by respondent no. 4 - Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sinchai Nirman Khand -2, Lalitpur for grant of pension to respondent no. 2 -Finance Controller, Irrigation Department, Lucknow on 30.12.1997. The husband of petitioner died on 01.04.2000. After the death of Sri Prem Chandra Agarwal, petitioner claimed post retiral dues of her husband. The respondent no. 2 -Finance Controller, Irrigation Department, Lucknow vide its letter dated 07.09.2000 sanctioned the amount of gratuity and family pension which was revised from time to time.
(2.) THE respondent no. 2 - Finance Controller, Irrigation Department, Lucknow vide its letter dated 24.3.2004 has sanctioned the commutation of pension amounting to Rs.2,42,254/ - in favour of late Prem Chandra Agarwal. The respondent no. 3 -Accountant General, Lekha Evam Hakdari -2, Allahabad vide its letter dated 24.6.2004 pointed out that certain mistakes have been committed in calculation of the pension and has returned the authority to respondent no. 2 for certain corrections. Accountant General, Lekha Evam Hakdari -2, Allahabad vide its letters dated 11.08.2004 and 29.10.2004 reminded to respondent no. 2 for submission of authority after correction.
(3.) THEREAFTER the respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 24.09.2004 cancelled the order dated 24.03.2004 whereby the commutation of pension was sanctioned in favour of late Prem Chandra Agarwal. Against the order dated 24.09.2004 the petitioner has preferred representations on 25.05.2005 and 02.09.2005 and when nothing was done, she preferred Writ Petition No. 54 (SB) of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 18.2.2013 disposed of the writ petition, which is as follows: "While assailing the impugned order dated 24.9.2004, solitary argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel is that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, that too without taking into account the letter dated 24.7.2000 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition), sent by the Executive Engineer. Controversy being involved disputed question of facts, we dispose of the writ petition finally permitting the petitioner to represent her cause before the Finance Controller, Irrigation Department within two weeks. In case such representation is submitted, the Finance Controller, shall decide the same after taking into account the letter dated 24.7.2000, passed by the Executive Engineer and other documentary evidence and shall pass a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with the representation." In light of the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 54 (SB) of 2006, the petitioner moved her representation dated 25.2.2013 before the respondent no. 2 -Finance Controller, Irrigation Department, Lucknow. The respondent no.2 -Finance Controller, Irrigation Department, Lucknow by the impugned order dated April, 2013 has rejected the representation of the petitioner holding that the husband of the petitioner Late Prem Chandra Agarwal (retired) had not exercised the option for payment of commutation of pension in the pension form, hence the approval for payment of commutation of pension cannot be given and therefore, the recommendation dated 24.07.2000 of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lalitpur for payment of commutation of pension to the dependent of Late Prem Chandra Agarwal is illegal. The respondent no. 2 -Finance Controller, Irrigation Department, Lucknow further held that when the pension papers were sent duly filled in by Late Prem Chandra Agarwal, in the office of Chief -in -Engineer, in column -9 which relates to commutation of pension and further in form -5 column no. 20 and 21 there was a cross ('X'), hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner is disposed of.;