Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1610 (ALL)

Haseen Bi v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2023-07-07

AJIT KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition as assailed the order dated 18.11.2022 whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish a succession certificate issued by the District Judge in support of her claim for family pension. The petitioner is the daughter of Late Kalbe Ali Khan who was a Government Employee and after his death his wife Smt. Khateeja Begum was receiving pension vide P.P.O. No.318152. However, later on she died in the year 2015 and the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post for getting family pension cleared for her. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to family pension in terms of the Government Order dated 03.12.2012 which provides that even after attaining the age of 25 years, the dependent would be entitled to family pension that includes an unmarried daughter. It is submitted that in the light of the relevant provisions that lay down the procedure as per the Government Order dated 08.08.1986 for the purpose of family pension, an applicant is required to furnish necessary succession certificate or an affidavit filed before the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar in the event the department concerned has not been able to verify the facts regarding claim of the petitioner as dependent of the deceased employee or his widow, who used to receive pension and family pension respectively. 4. Relevant Government Order dated 3.12.2012 is reproduced hereunder: (emphasis added) 5. Learned Standing Counsel though has tried to defend the order for the reason assigned therein but could not meet the argument which finds support in paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 08.08.1986 that there is no such consideration accorded in the order impugned to compel the authority to ask the petitioner to furnish succession certificate. Learned Standing Counsel though has tried to defend the order for the reason assigned therein but could not meet the argument which finds support in paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 08.08.1986 that there is no such consideration accorded in the order impugned to compel the authority to ask the petitioner to furnish succession certificate. Paragraph 9 of the Government Order is reproduced hereunder: 9- izkFkZuk i= izkIr gksus ds mijkar vkosnd dks lEcfa/kr dk;kZy;k/;{k@foHkkxk/;{k dks bl ckr ls larq"V djuk gksxk fd og lEcaf/kr ljdkjh lsod dh fo/kok@fo/kqj vFkok ik= larku gSA lEcaf/kr dk;kZYk;/;{k@foHkkxk/;{k mijksDr dh iqf”V izFker% vius dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kks vFkok vkosnd }kjk izLrqr laxr nLrkostks ds vk/kkj djsaxs@;fn vkosnd viuh igpku gsrq dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr u dj lds vkSj bl dk;kZy; esa Hkh bl gsrq dksbZ vfHkys[k miyC/k u gks rks lEcf/kr dk;kZy;k/;{k@foHkkxk/;{k vius dk;kZy; ds fdUgh nks ofj"B rFkk LFkk;h deZpkfj;ks ls vkosnd dh f'kuk[r djok ysA ;fn mi;qDrkuqlkj Hkh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lEHko u gks lds rks lEcfa/kr vkosnd dks fuEu esa ls ,d lk{; izLrqr djuk gksxkA 1- U;k;ky; }kjk izLrqr mŸkjkf/kdkj izek.k&i= ;k 2- dk;Zdkjh eftLVªsV vFkok rglhynkj ds le{k fn;k x;k 'kiFk i=A^^ (Emphasis added) 6. Learned Standing Counsel at this stage submits that the matter may be remitted to the authority concerned to pass order afresh in the light of the relevant rules and Government Order issued from time to time. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that it is for the authority concerned to pass appropriate order. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find that the order dated 18.11.2022 impugned here in this petition is quite an unreasonable order so as to justify the directions issued therein inasmuch as there is no consideration accorded to the procedure laid down in paragraph no.9 of the aforesaid Government Order. 9. In the circumstances, therefore, the order dated 18.11.2022 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby, accordingly, quashed. 10. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to look into and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the relevant provisions as contained under the Government Order dated 03.12.2012 and as per the procedure prescribed vide paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 08.08.1986 to determine the claim for family pension. 11. 10. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to look into and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the relevant provisions as contained under the Government Order dated 03.12.2012 and as per the procedure prescribed vide paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 08.08.1986 to determine the claim for family pension. 11. The order shall be passed within a period of thirty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is, allowed as above.