Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7133 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. SMT. MOHINI DEVI

SPA/121/2018 · 2025-03-17

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1809-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No. 121 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand- appellant. 2. Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. This intra-court appeal is directed against the final order dated 05.04.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 249 of 2007. By the said order, writ petition, filed by the respondent, was decided in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, which was upheld by Division Bench in SPA No. 25 of 2004. The order dated 05.04.2017, impugned in this writ petition, is extracted below:- “Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001 on 21.01.2004, upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 25 of 2004 on 24.08.2005. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure No. 3 dated 26.08.2004 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to release family pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 2025:UHC:1809-DB 5. Learned State Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the judgment dated 23.04.2013 rendered in WPSS No. 557 of 2010 (Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others), the writ petition filed by respondent could not have been allowed, inasmuch as, husband of the respondent had opted for Triple Benefit Scheme introduced vide Government Order dated 17.12.1965, but he had never exercised option for benefit of Modified Pension Scheme, as introduced in 1978. He, thus, submits that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Modified Pension Scheme, as introduced in 1978. Para 3 of the said judgment, relied by the State Counsel, is extracted below:- “3. The fact remains that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said judgment, inasmuch as by that judgment paragraph 24 of the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 was not quashed, but was quashed only for Smt. Parvati Pandey. Nothing has been shown in the instant writ petition, why paragraph 24 of the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 should be interfered with by the Court. The fact remains that at the time when the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 was issued, the husband of the petitioner was not covered by the Scheme, under which an employee is entitled to the benefit of the provident fund and pension-cum-family pension until death. The Government, accordingly, introduced a benefit scheme for those employees by the said Government Order. Later, in 1978, the Government gave an option to all those employees by the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 to opt for provident fund and pension-cumfamily pension until death. The husband of the petitioner chose not to opt for the same. Petitioner, the wife of the employee, now cannot contend that paragraph 24 of the Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 is at all interferable since her husband never thought that the same is interferable.” 2025:UHC:1809-DB 6. Since the writ court has not considered the judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of Smt. Mohini Pandy vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and has relied upon the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 7212 of 2001, which was disapproved by Division Bench, therefore, on this sole ground the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.03.2025 Aswal 2025:UHC:1809-DB