2025:UHC:8044-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.147 of 2018 State of Uttarakhand and others ….. Appellants Vs. Smt. Khasti Devi and another ……Respondents Presence: Mr. Rahul Verma, learned Addl. A.G. for the State/appellants. Mr. S.K. Shah, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. I. D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh/respondent no.2. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Challenge in this Special Appeal is made to the judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2151 of 2016, Smt. Khasti Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Respondent no.1 (the writ petitioner) filed the writ petition seeking family pension, its arrears w.e.f. 09.01.1988 with interest admissible as per law. By the impugned order, the petition was decided by the Court holding that the lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001, decided on 21.01.2004. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that Writ Petition (S/S) No.7212 of 2001, Smt. Parvati Pandey Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, was decided by this Court on 21.01.2004 and, in that case, a Government Order was quashed, so far as it relates to petitioner in that case and, thereafter, respondents in that case were directed to release the family pension. 2 2025:UHC:8044-DB 5. It is argued that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra) cannot be made applicable to any other person except the petitioner of that writ petition and the instant writ petition could not have been decided based on the judgment dated 21.01.2004 passed in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra). 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that, in fact, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 28.10.2004 of this Court passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No.445 of 2002, Smt. Jeewanti Devi Vs. State and Others. He submits that this aspect has not been discussed in the impugned judgment. He fairly concedes that the case of the writ petitioner is not covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra). 7. The impugned order is based on the judgment passed on 21.01.2004, in the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra), but the ratio of the case of Smt. Parvati Pandey (supra), as stated, cannot be made applicable to any other person, because in that case, a Government Order was quashed qua the petitioner of that case alone, therefore, an interference is warranted in the instant appeal. 8. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.09.2025 10.09.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf2 8cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F41 8755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.15 15:32:38 +05'30'