SMT. KASTURI DEVI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT
WPSS/2169/2017 · 2026-02-10
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 942 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 942 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:754 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSS 2169/2017
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Tejas Agarrwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel, for the State.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate, i/b Mr. Syed Nadim, Advocate for the respondent no. 3.
(2) Petitioner’s husband was serving as Peon in Nagar Palika Parishad, Kotdwar, who retired on
30.6.2000. After his retirement, petitioner’s husband passed away on
26.10.2003. According to petitioner, she was entitled to family pension as per Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Retirement Benefit Rules, 1984, however family pension was not given to her. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing the respondent authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner alongwith interest.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing the respondent authorities to calculate arrears of family pension from 27.10.2003.”
(3)
Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 924 of 2019. He submits that since the issue involved is identical, therefore, this writ petition can be decided in terms of the judgment dated 6.7.2022, rendered in WPSS No. 924 of 2019.
2026:UHC:754 (4) Learned State Counsel and
learned Counsel appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad submit that they have no objection if the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(5) Writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 6.7.2022 rendered in WPSS No. 924 of
2019. Petitioner shall make representation to respondent no. 2 staking claim for family pension as per applicable rules. Director concerned shall take decision on petitioner’s representation, as per law, within three months from the date of its receipt.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.2.2026 Pr
PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957B E53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.10 17:52:09 +05'30'
2026:UHC:754