HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 662 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 78 days. 2. The cause shown for the delay is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, delay is condoned. 3. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Office is directed to allot regular number to the instant appeal. Order on Memo of Appeal 1. Heard Shri Yatindra, Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri Siya Ram Sahu, Advocate appearing for the sole respondent. 2. The present appeal is directed against an order of learned Single Judge dated 16.05.2025 in Writ-A No.17029 of 2013 whereby the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner claiming retiral benefits and challenging the order dated 05.03.2008, rejecting her representation for grant of family pension for the services rendered by her deceased husband as a teacher, was disposed of by directing the appellants to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as a lumpsum amount towards pensionary benefits, considering the fact that she had been litigating for the same for last twelve years and was 85 years of age. Relevant part of the judgment of learned Single Judge is reproduced for ready reference: Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Yatindra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Siya Ram Sahu The Basic Shiksha Adhikari And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) Smt Maya .....Respondent(s) "24. In this regard, Court is of considered view that admittedly when petitioner was appointed in the year 1963, there was no specific provision of minimum qualification for appointment of teacher. In 1978, when Rules were enforced, there was no requirement for teachers' appointed earlier, to pass minimum qualification except to get a training certificate and subsequently, there are Government Orders, where exemption from training was also provided subject to period of service. 25. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 05.03.2008 is set aside and its legal consequence will follow. 26. As referred above, petitioner's husband died in the year 2011 after his retirement in the year 1991. Thus, benefit of pension cannot be granted or it could be granted only on notional basis. Now the question left is to grant family pension to present petitioner who is fighting present legal battle for last 12 years. 27. At present, petitioner must be aged about 85 years and at this stage, to determine amount of family pension would be difficult and probably she may require a lumpsum amount to survive, therefore, in the interest of justice and after considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that a lumpsum amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid to petitioner in her bank account only, after due verification and for that, concerned State-respondent will communicate her in accordance with law." 3. It is not disputed that the husband of the respondent-petitioner worked as untrained Teacher from 19.11.1963 at a Primary School, Karmalipur Garhi, Baghpat, Meerut until his retirement on 30.06.1991. Pension was denied on the ground that he did not have the requisite training experience and also the qualification. 4. The learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with various Government Orders holding the field and has also specifically dealt with both the issues i.e. regarding employee allegedly being unqualified teacher and whether he possessed the qualification or not. The learned Single Judge has also taken notice of the fact that at the time of appointment of husband of respondent- SPLAD No. 662 of 2025 2 petitioner as a Teacher, the service rules have not become applicable and no minimum qualification was prescribed. Subsequently, by means of Government Orders issued from time to time, untrained teachers were regularised after they have put in particular number of years in service. It has been observed by learned Single Judge that the employee would get benefit of the Government Order dated 04.12.1982. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that the aforesaid Government Order would apply only to teachers of Junior High School and Primary Institutions whereas the husband of the respondent-petitioner was working in an institution run by the Board. 6. We notice that no such plea was raised before the learned Single Judge. The order of learned Single Judge is also based on the consideration that the age of the respondent-petitioner is 85 years. In place of pension and family pension, only a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been allowed. 7. Keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the case, we decline to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has already clarified that the judgment being in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would not be treated as a precedent. 8. The appeal is consequently, dismissed. September 10, 2025 Prachi SPLAD No. 662 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad