Family Pension Scheme Has Retrospective Application: Allahabad HC Quashes Order Withdrawing Family Pension To Widow Of Deceased School Teacher
The Allahabad High Court quashed an order withdrawing family pension granted to a widow of a school teacher.
The Court observed that the Government Order which made the family pension scheme applicable to dependents of employees who passed away after rendering at least one year of continuous service, should be applied retrospectively.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharastra (2006) wherein it was held that when a law is enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision, the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Mathur observed, “In view of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, Government Order dated 16.06.1984 cannot be made restrictive once it has itself applied Government Order dated 31.03.1982 retrospectively in its entirety.”
Advocate Suresh Chandra Srivastava appeared for the petitioner, while CSC Pradeep Kumar Pandey represented the respondents.
The petitioner challenged the order withdrawing the family pension earlier granted to her. The petitioner submitted that her husband was employed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School and passed away while in service.
In response to another petition filed by another similarly situated widow, the Director of Basic Education was directed to review pension orders granted under the 1965 Family Pension Scheme, which led to the withdrawal of pensions like that of the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the 1982 Government Order, which reduced the qualifying service for family pension eligibility from 20 years to 1 year, was made retrospective by a subsequent order in 1984. This meant that even employees who died before 1981, like the petitioner's husband, should be eligible for family pension.
The High Court held that “it is quite evident” that the Government Order was considered to have retrospective applicability only in cases where the employee or his dependents are eligible in terms of Government Order 1965.
The Lucknow Bench stated, “It is in such circumstances where the sole bread earner has passed away that the provision of Family Pension has been notified so as the dependents of such sole bread earner are not deprived of their livelihood.”
“It is the object and purpose of grant of such a beneficial provision which is required to be considered in the light so as to give maximum benefit of the same,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and commanded the authorities to ensure payment of Family Pension to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Chandrakanti Devi v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:54450)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Sharad Pathak and Suyash Dwivedi
Respondent: CSC Pradeep Kumar Pandey; Advocates Ran Vijay Singh, J.B.S. Rathour and Shailendra Singh Rajawat
