HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.2079 of 2023 (S/S) Shanti Devi ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Utarakhand and others ……....... Respondents Present : Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent nos.1 to 4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to communication dated 02.05.2019 as well as order dated 04.10.2021, passed by respondent no.4, Divisional Forest Officer, Kedarnath, Wild Life Division, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli (“the DFO”), by which, the petitioner has been denied family pension on the ground that the husband of the petitioner, Late Sate Singh Rawat did not complete 10 years service. In fact, in his order dated 04.10.2021, the DFO has stated that the petitioner’s husband could not have derived benefit of Section 6(a) of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 (“the 2018 Act”) because he had retired prior to the date when the 2018 Act came into force. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband Late Sate Singh Rawat was working in the Forest Department; his services were regularized on 02.07.2003; the husband of the petitioner was not keeping well, he took voluntary retirement, which was accepted on 30.06.2013 and subsequently, he died on 15.10.2013. But, the 2 petitioner has not been granted family pension on the ground that her husband has rendered only 09 years, 09 months and 29 days’ service, which is not eligible for grant of pension because for grant of pension the minimum service required is 10 years. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband’s services were regularized on 02.07.2003. Therefore, the provisions of the 2018 Act can be made applicable on him in view of Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that in view of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act, the period of six month and more than six month shall be considered one year and by this interpretation the petitioner’s husband’s service can be treated as 10 years service, so as to make her eligible for grant of pension. 5. The DFO has filed counter affidavit. According to it, the husband of the petitioner took the voluntary retirement prior to completion of minimum 10 years of service, which is required for pensionary benefits. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was regularized on 02.07.2003; he took voluntary retirement, which was accepted on 30.06.2013; he had rendered 09 years 09 months and 29 days’ service. It is argued that the petitioner has been denied family pension on the following two grounds:- (i) That the husband of the petitioner did not complete 10 years of minimum service; and or 3 (ii) The benefit of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act cannot be extended to the petitioner because the husband of the petitioner had retired prior to the enforcement of the 2018 Act. 7. It is argued that both the propositions are wrong because in view of Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act, the 2018 Act shall be applicable on the personnel substantively appointed before the date of 1st October, 2005 and in view of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act, six month or more than six month shall be considered one year. The husband of the petitioner has rendered 09 years, 09 months and 29 days’ service, before he voluntarily retired. Therefore, it shall be considered 10 years service. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner is also entitled to get interest @ 6% interest per annum on the unpaid amount of pension. He cites the principle of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh, (2017)1 SCC 49. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 10 has observes as follows:- “10. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, as above, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned order [State of U.P. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine All 971] passed by the High Court in respect of interest directed to be paid on the amount of withheld gratuity and pension. We direct that the appellants shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the unpaid amount of pension from the date it had fallen due and interest @ 8% p.a. on the unpaid amount of gratuity from the date of retirement of the employee.” 4 9. Learned State counsel would submit that when the husband of the petitioner retired, at that time, the U.P. Rules were applicable and accordingly, the case of the husband of the petitioner was decided; the husband of the petitioner had not rendered 10 years of service, therefore, he was not entitled for pension. 10. Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act, reads as follows:- “1(2) This Act shall be applicable on the personnel substantively appointed before the date of 1st October, 2005 under the services of State Government in the case of completion of superannuation age, voluntary retirement and compulsory retirement and in the case of death of any personnel, shall be applicable on the dependents of such personnel” 11. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was regularized on 02.07.2003, which means that he was substantively appointed before the date of 1st October, 2005. Therefore, the provisions of the 2018 Act shall be applicable on him. Now, the question is, as to whether he is entitled to the benefit of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed 09 years, 09 months and 29 days’ service before he took voluntary retirement. Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act reads as follows:- “6(a) Pension shall not permissible if services are for less than ten years (six month and more than six month shall be considered one year and the period of less than six months shall not be calculated).” 13. A bare reading of Section 6(a) of the 2018 Act makes it abundantly clear that six month and more than six month shall be 5 considered one year. The petitioner’s husband had completed 09 years, 09 months and 29 days of service. It shall be considered as 10 years service, which makes the petitioner eligible for pension. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law. They deserve to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. 14. The petition is allowed. 15. The impugned orders are set aside. 16. The husband of the petitioner Late Sate Singh Rawat is entitled to pension. 17. After the death of her husband, the petitioner is entitled to family pension. 18. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of pension of Late Sate Singh Rawat and also consider the claim of the petitioner for family pension. The petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears/unpaid amount of pension from the date it had fallen due. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd 504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE 40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.07.02 18:42:36 +05'30'