Km. Hansi Suyal v. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) JUDGMENT Since common question of facts and law involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apt that the facts of both these cases may be separated and examine. WPSS No.685 of 2022

3. The petitioner in this petition is daughter of Late Shri Banwari Lal Bhatt. She was married, but subsequently, she divorced on 08.04.2011. She was dependent on her mother for livelihood, but her mother also died on 10.02.2021. 2

4. It is the case of the petitioner that her father Late Shri Banwari Lal Bhatt was retired from the post of Principal of Government Primary School, Lakhibagh, District Dehradun on

30.06.1990. He was paid pension as per Government Order (“G.O.”) dated 24.02.1989 from the State of Uttar Pradesh. He died on

31.08.1995. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner was paid family pension till her death on 10.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner under Rules being a divorced woman applied for family pension, which has been denied to her by impugned communication dated

27.09.2021 by the respondent no.4, the District Education Officer. This impugned communication that 27.09.2021 records that the employees/Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad were provincialised from 22.04.2006 and in the relevant G.O., there is no provision made with regard to such Teachers/employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006. This impugned communication is based on a G.O. dated 13.09.2021 of the respondent no.1. This G.O. dated 13.09.2021 of the respondent no.1 records that provincialisation of Basic Shiksha Parishad was done by the G.O. dated 24.06.2006, but this G.O. dated 24.06.2006 does not make any provision with regard to such personnel working in the Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to

22.04.2006. The petitioner seeks family pension while setting aside the impugned communication dated 27.09.2021 of the respondent no.4. WPSS No.1167 of 2022

5. The controversy in the instant petition is almost similar. The petitioner in the instant case is unmarried daughter of 3 Late Shri Srikrishan Suyal, who was working as a Teacher in Basic Shiksha Parishad School and had retired on 30.06.1987. He was paid pension till his death on 08.02.2005. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner Smt. Tulsi Devi received family pension till

07.07.2020. When the petitioner applied for family pension, by the impugned communication dated 20.11.2021 of the respondent no.4, Deputy Education Officer, she was conveyed G.O. dated

13.09.2021 of the respondent no.1, which records that the employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad were provincialised by virtue of G.O. dated 24.06.2006, but it does not make any provision with regard to such employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by virtue of G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttarakhand (Annexure No.2 in WPSS No.685 of 2022), all the employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad were paid pension, family pension, etc. It is argued that thereafter, after the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, by the G.O. dated 27.10.2008 of the State of Uttarakhand (Annexure No.9 to the WPSS No.685 of 2022), it was directed that pursuant to the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, the pensions of all those employees, who were earlier receiving pension shall be revised. It is argued that in G.O. dated

24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh, unmarried daughter is within the definition of family and by G.O. dated 27.10.2008, divorced daughter is also included in the definition of family. It is argued that both the petitioners are entitled for family pension. 4

7. Learned State Counsel does not dispute proposition. According to him, the G.O. dated 24.06.2006 of the State of Uttarakhand states that all the employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad would be employee of Government w.e.f. 22.04.2006, but this G.O. does not make any provision with regard to the employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006. It is also submitted that by the subsequent G.O. dated 13.09.2021, this position has further been clarified.

8. The fathers of the petitioners were working in Basic Shiksha Parishad. They were entitled for pension by virtue of G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh. After recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, the State of Uttarakhand also issued a G.O. dated 27.10.2008, which makes provisions with regard to the pension of all the retired employees, who were receiving pension prior to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, which were made effective since 01.01.2006.

9. Grant of pension and provincialisation of the employees by the G.O. dated 24.04.2006, may not be clubbed together for denying pension to the petitioners. In G.O. dated 24.04.2006 of the State of Uttarakhand, the only concern was with regard to the change of status of such employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Their services were transferred to the State Government and they were treated as the employees of the State Government. It does not say that such employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006 and who were receiving pension by virtue of G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh may not be paid any pension. The G.O. dated 24.04.2006 does not deal 5 with the pensionary aspect of such employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad, who had retired prior to 22.04.2006. Pension was granted to the employees of the Basic Shiksha Parishad by the G.O. dated

24.02.1989. There were provision of the family pension also in the G.O. dated 24.02.1989 of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Further, in the G.O. dated 27.10.2008 of the State of Uttarakhand. In fact, the mother of both the petitioners were receiving family pension after the death of their fathers. In WPSS No.1167 of 2022, the mother of the petitioner did receive pension till 07.07.2020 and in WPSS No.685 of 2022, the mother of the petitioner did receive pension till

10.02.2021. There is no reason to deny the pension to the petitioners. Hence, both the petitions deserve to be allowed.

11. Both the petitions are allowed. The impugned communications dated 20.11.2021 of the respondent nos.4 and G.O. dated 13.09.2021 in WPSS No.1167 of 2022 and order dated 27.09.2021, issued by the respondent no.4 in WPSS No.685 of 2022 are set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to issue family pension to the petitioners. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05 .06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1 afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84 B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA