1 2025:CGHC:5111-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 57 of 2025 1 - General Manager (Region) Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Kapa, P.O. Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Divisional Manager F.C.I. Divisional Office, Anugrah Bhavan, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001. ... Appellant(s) versus Dropati Bai Sahu W/o Late Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Beeja, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 195113. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R.K. Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.30 10:39:49 +0530 2 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2455 of 2022 (Dropti Bai Sahu Vs. General Manager (Region) and Another), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, directing the respondent No. 1 / appellant No.1 herein to take decision with regard to the payment of family pension to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of amount of family pension shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of entitlement till its realization. 3. Briefs facts of the case are that the husband of the writ petitioner Late Bharat Lal Sahu was appointed as a AG-3 in departments of Food Corporation of India by respondent No. 02. The husband of the writ petitioner had been performed his service for a long time about 27 years with honesty and last posted Karagi road Document related for his last Appointment. On dated 08.02.1999, husband of the writ petitioner Bharat lal Sahu died. The writ petitioner's husband received his last salary in year 1999. After the death of her husband the family member of the deceased many time applied to the department for the compassionate appointment, pension and other benefits of the service but the department did not consider in this regard. The writ petitioner is illiterate and was suffering from many diseases and her children were very younger at the time of her husband's death, that's why they could not apply for any relief. In the year 2017, younger son of the writ petitioner filed 3 representation before the respondents compassionate appointment and pension along with other benefits of the service. The writ petitioner is deprived all the benefits of the service allowance, pension and compassionate appointment till today. Being aggrieved by the said, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 2455 of 2022 (Dropti Bai Sahu Vs. General Manager (Region) and Another), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, directing the respondent No. 1 / appellant No.1 herein to take decision with regard to the payment of family pension to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of amount of family pension shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of entitlement till its realization. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, instant appeal has been filed by the appellants herein. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.1 have complied with the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.11.2024 in WPS No. 2455 of 2022, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with direction to the appellant No.1 herein to “take decision with regard to the payment of family pension to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of amount of family pension shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of entitlement till its realization.”, within stipulated time 4 and sent all the relevant documents to the Head ofÏce of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Central) Employees Provident Fund Origination, 28, Community Center, Vajeerpur Industrial Aria, Vajeerpur, Delhi-110052, vide its letter dated 23.12.2024 for releasing the family pension to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that though the appellant No. 1 herein has complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but has come up before this Court stating that when the writ petitioner herself has filed an application form after lapse of 23 years period, under the circumstances there is no question for grant of 10% arrears amount of family pension for delayed payment of pension. Further the appellants had raised objection the instant case, the respondent/petitioner has straightaway approached the Hon’ble Court for granting pension without making a representation to the answering respondent/department, hence, the instant writ petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 5 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / respondent herein holding that admittedly, the husband of the writ petitioner died in harness on 8.2.1999. Since the year 1999 till 2021, no steps were taken by respondent No.1 / appellant No. 1 herein with regard to payment of family pension. Return was filed by respondent No.1 / appellant No. 1 herein, but single document has not been placed on record to demonstrate that at any point of time from 1999 till 2021 any notice was issued to the writ petitioner to submit her option. Respondent No.1 / appellant No. 1 acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in this matter. Hence taking into consideration the above-stated facts, respondent No.1 / appellant No.1 herein was directed to take decision with regard to payment of family pension to the writ petitioner within a period of 30 days and the arrears of amount of family pension shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of entitlement till its realization. 10. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the grievance raised by the appellant herein that though the appellant No.1 have complied with the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.11.2024 in WPS No. 2455 of 2022 within stipulated time and sent all the relevant documents to the Head ofÏce of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Central) Employees Provident Fund Origination, 28, Community Center, Vajeerpur 6 Industrial Aria, Vajeerpur, Delhi-110052, vide its letter dated 23.12.2024 for releasing the family pension to the respondent, but since writ petitioner / respondent herein herself has filed an application form after lapse of 23 years period, thus there is no question for grant of 10% arrears amount of family pension for delayed payment of pension is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed, as it is an admitted fact that writ petitioner’s husband died in harness on 8.2.1999. Since the year 1999 till 2021, no steps were taken by respondent No.1 / appellant No. 1 herein with regard to payment of family pension further, return was filed by respondent No.1 / appellant No. 1 herein, but single document has not been placed on record to demonstrate that at any point of time from 1999 till 2021 any notice was issued to the writ petitioner to submit her option. Further, in an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet