Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 849 (HP)

Leela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-03-03

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para No. 7 (i) & (iii):- “7 (i). That applicant be granted family pension w.e.f. Jan., 1996 along with arrears. (iii). That the applicant be considered for all consequential benefits and reliefs.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 & 3 have taken the following stand vide para 6.4:- “6.4. In regard to averments made in this para the factual position is that the application of Smt. Leela Devi w/o late Sh. Mast Ram Chauhan, for family pension was sent to the Sr. Dy. Accountant General (A&E) H.P. Shimla-3, vide letter No. Karmik (Lekha) B (3) Misc-1/99-I, dated 29.9.1999 (copy annexed as Annexure R/2) to O.A. The Sr.Dy. Accountant General (A&E) H.P. Shimla intimated vide their letter No. Pen-1/M-15/70-71/10853-54 dated 6.1.2000 (copy annexed as Annexure R/3) to the O.A. that as per pension case file of the retiree there is no mention of name of Smt. Leela Devi, as wife of Sh. Mast Ram Chauhan and at the time of his retirement the pension case of late Sh. Mast Ram Chauhan was decided by the A.G. Central Revenue, New Delhi and his PPO was issued by their office and the name of Smt. Damyanti Devi was recorded as his wife who was also authorized family pension vide PPO No. 710/HP and subsequent PPO No. 2746/HP (copy annexed as Annexure R/1) to O.A. It was also intimated that Smt. Leela Devi had claimed family pension after the death of Smt. Damyanti Devi only which she did not claim immediately after the death of Sh. Mast Ram Chauhan i.e. June, 1976 onward and as per certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, the marriage of Smt. Leela Devi was solemnized before the year 1954 but the retiree never indicated her name as his wife. They further stated that before authorizing family pension the genuineness of claim/documents produced by the claimant may be got examined to avoid any fraud payment. Accordingly Smt. Leela Devi was requested vide letter No. Karmik (Lekha) B (3) Misc-1/99-II dated 7.2.2000 (copy annexed at Annexure R/4 to O.A.) to send requisite documents for examining the genuineness of the claim and also intimate the reasons for not staking claim for family pension immediately after the death of Sh. Mast Ram Chauhan. The reply of this letter is still awaited.” 3. Mast Ram Chauhan. The reply of this letter is still awaited.” 3. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No.2 vide para 6 of the reply:- “6. In reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that Sh. Mast Ram, L.A.O. (Retd.) (now deceased) was a member of DHANICS (Combined Cadre of Delhi, H.P. and Andamans). On his retirement in the year 1968 his pension case was decided by A.G.C. & R., New Delhi being member of Dhanics, although he retired as Land Acquisition Officer from H.P.P.W.D. Shimla. The A.G.C&R. New Delhi reported the family pension in favour of Smt. Damyanti Devi, wife of late Shri Mast Ram and it was payable to her in the event of death of the pensioner vide Audit & Enfacement No. P.NI/3A-421/68-69 and Special seal Authority dated 6.3.1999 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1). Accordingly, Smt. Damyanti Devi drew family pension from 4.6.1976 (date of death of the petitioner) to 28.12.1995 when she also expired and thereafter family pension was discontinued as averred by the applicant in the Original Application. The applicant Smt. Leela Devi has now claimed the family pension after the death of Smt. Damyanti Devi stated to be legally wedded second wife of deceased Govt. servant. To this effect she had also represented to the replying respondent through respondent-Department No.1 vide letter dated 29.9.1999 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-2). The replying respondent vide its letter dated 6.1.2000 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-3) had informed the respondent-Department No.1 accordingly. But no reply has been received in this regard from respondent-Department No.1 till today. It is pertinent to mention here that as stated above pension case of the deceased Govt. servant was decided by the A.G.C &R., New Delhi and at that time family pension was reported in favour of Smt. Damyanti Devi and not in favour of Smt. Leela Devi (Applicant) being her name may not be mentioned in the pension papers submitted by the deceased Govt. servant and forwarded by the respondent-Department No.1 to the Accountant General Central & Revenues, New Delhi. As such, the original pension papers are not available with the replying respondent. The replying respondent had only issued the P.P.O. to the concerned Treasury on the basis of Special Seal Authority received from the AGCR, New Delhi since the pensioner at the time of retirement had desired to draw the pension in H.P. State. As such, the original pension papers are not available with the replying respondent. The replying respondent had only issued the P.P.O. to the concerned Treasury on the basis of Special Seal Authority received from the AGCR, New Delhi since the pensioner at the time of retirement had desired to draw the pension in H.P. State. In view of above there is no action on the part of the replying respondent. However, further action will be taken as per directions of the Hon’ble Court. Rest of the averments need no submission.” 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, she may make a representation along with a copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within a month from today who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within next two months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.