Rajmuni Devi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and ors.

Rajmuni Devi vs District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 28, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483574

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/483574
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Anjani Kumar, J.
Decided On: Nov 28, 2001
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 38282 of 2001
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - denial of family pension - petitioner claiming family pension after her husband's death - claim rejected on grounds that Government Order allowed pension to family of only those who died after 01.12.1989 - such Order discriminatory and unreasonable - claim cannot be rejected - petitioner to be paid family ...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajmuni Devi

Advocate U.K. Mishra and ;A.K. Mishra, Advs.

Respondent

District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and ors.

Advocate C.S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: D. S. Nakara v. Union of India
Reported In: 2002(1)AWC208; (2002)1UPLBEC630

Excerpt

service - denial of family pension - petitioner claiming family pension after her husband's death - claim rejected on grounds that government order allowed pension to family of only those who died after 01.12.1989 - such order discriminatory and unreasonable - claim cannot be rejected - petitioner to be paid family pension. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled].anjani kumar, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. petitioner by means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, has challenged the order dated 27th september, 2001.2. the petitioner is a widow, who claimed the family pension on account of the death of her husband. the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that in view of the government order dated 24th february, 1989, the family pension of such employee is payable only to such family members whosebread earner had died after 1st december, 1989, whereas the petitioner's case is that petitioner's husband died on 31st august, 1987. this view is wholly arbitrary in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of d. s. nakara v. union of india, air 1983 sc 130. the aforesaid government order amounts to carving out a class from a homogenous class of persons who are entitled for the family pension, the basis of which is not permissible under law. in this view of the matter, the order dated 27th september, 2001, is quashed.3. the writ petition is allowed. the petitioner is entitled for family pension from the date from which all other persons are allowed by the respondents and the benefit of family pension shall not be denied only on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had died before 1.12. 1989. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the order dated 27th September, 2001.

2. The petitioner is a widow, who claimed the family pension on account of the death of her husband. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that in view of the Government order dated 24th February, 1989, the family pension of such employee is payable only to such family members whosebread earner had died after 1st December, 1989, whereas the petitioner's case is that petitioner's husband died on 31st August, 1987. This view is wholly arbitrary in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. The aforesaid Government order amounts to carving out a class from a homogenous class of persons who are entitled for the family pension, the basis of which is not permissible under law. In this view of the matter, the order dated 27th September, 2001, is quashed.

3. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for family pension from the date from which all other persons are allowed by the respondents and the benefit of family pension shall not be denied only on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had died before 1.12. 1989. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Rajmuni Devi vs District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Anjani Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Service