Arvind Kumar Gupta vs Bahrat Sarkaar, Karmik, Lok Shikayat Evam

It is contended that though the petitioner has been granted family pension vide Pension Payment Order dated 05.08.2022, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the writ petition w.e.f August 2022 yet he would be entitled for the arrears for the period from 2013 to 2022 i.e from the death of his father till the pension was actually sanctioned. Learned counsel for the respondents has however, placed reliance on the Government order dated 15.06.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition to contend that it would be a prospective effect. However, perusal of the said Government order would indicate that it has been issued in pursuance to the certain earlier Government orders of the years 1981, 1997 etc. Upon the same being pointed out, learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to file a supplementary counter affidavit duly bringing on record the aforesaid Government orders and any other Government order which may have some relevance to the facts of the instant case. As the matter has been heard at length as such, list this case on

04.08.2025 at 0215 PM for further hearing. .......... In pursuance to order dated 14.07.2025 Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 has produced the Government Orders of the year 1981, 1997 etc as referred to in the impugned Government Order dated 15.06.2022. Incidentally Government Order of the year 1981 i.e. 06.08.1981 is already on record as annexure 7. Perusal of the same indicates that earlier the grant of family pension to disabled wards of deceased employee was only admittedly up to the age of 18 years and 21 years for the son and the daughter respectively but by 3 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 means of Government Order dated 06.08.1981 the same was made admissible without any age limit provided the ward is suffering from physical disability on account of which he is unable to earn his employment. The Government Order dated 06.08.1981 provided that the said physical disability should have accrued prior to retirement or during the service period of the employee. By means of Government Order dated 12.11.1997 it was provided that even if the disability to the ward may have accrued subsequent to the retirement of the employee then too the ward would be eligible for family pension. By means of Government Order dated 27.10.2016 it was provided that in case the disabled daughter got married then family pension will not be stopped rather it would continue, meaning thereby that irrespective of the marriage of the disabled ward the family pension would continue. By means of impugned Government Order dated 15.06.2022 it was provided that the term used in the earlier Government Orders as ?unable to earn livelihood? which 'livelihood' was quantified as an amount not exceeding 30% of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee and the dearness allowance upon the same i.e. the income receivable by the disabled employee should not exceed 30% plus dearness allowance of the last pay drawn by the employee. The petitioner has only been granted family pension with effect from June 2022 i.e. the date of issuance of Government Order dated 15.06.2022 yet seeks family pension with effect from death of his father i.e. 26.09.2013. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had earlier applied for grant of family pension for which a letter dated

21.02.2018 was issued by the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Hardoi, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition and even earlier too the petitioner applied but the respondents did not pay any heed on the application of the petitioner and have only granted family pension with effect from June 2022. Thus in order to find out as to whether the petitioner has ever applied for grant of family pension on the basis of the disability certificate which has been issued on 21.07.2006 4 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 respondents no. 5 and 6 file short counter affidavit in this regard positively within two weeks. As the matter has been heard at length, list this case on

11.09.2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing. On that date the records pertaining to the petitioner shall also be produced before this Court. At this stage Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents points out that as per the succession certificate, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, it emerges that the petitioner was having an elder brother aged about 24 years and as such at the first instance pension would be payable to the petitioner's brother till the age of 25 years. As such the affidavit to be filed by the respondent would also indicate the respective dates to which family pension was paid to the other family members of the retired employee."

7. From a perusal of the aforesaid orders, it emerges that the petitioner, in the capacity of being the physically handicapped son of Sri Balbhadra Prasad Gupta, who was working as a Principal in the institution governed by respondent No.6, is before this Court claiming family pension on account of his physical disability.

8. Admittedly, the respondents have sanctioned family pension to the petitioner with effect from 15.06.2022 and the petitioner has staked his claim for payment of arrears with effect from 27.09.2013 to 14.06.2022.

9. The petitioner’s father died on 26.09.2013 and hence the claim for family pension with effect from 27.09.2013.

10. From the short counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it emerges that, admittedly, the petitioner had applied for family pension on account of his disability for the first time on 01.12.2017. A copy of the application form is annexure-SCA-6 to the short counter affidavit.

11. The respondents sat over the matter and it was only when the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2021 by filing Writ Petition No.31032 (S/S) of 2021, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 with a direction to the District Basic 5 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 Education Office to decide the representation of the petitioner, which too was not decided, which constrained the petitioner to file Contempt Application (Civil) No.946 of 2022 and it was only during pendency of the contempt application that the respondents, after requiring the petitioner to complete the formalities, have sanctioned family pension with effect from 15.06.2022.

12. The reason as to why it took the respondents almost five years to sanction family pension to the petitioner is indicated that the petitioner was required to submit a certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of not being able to earn his livelihood on account of his physical disability, which was only submitted in the year 2022 and thereafter the family pension was sanctioned.

13. The aforesaid ground as taken by the learned counsel for the respondents of having taken almost five years to process the claim of the petitioner for family pension is found to be fallacious, inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner had applied for grant of family pension on to why the respondents 01.12.2017. No reasons emerge as continued to sit over the matter and it not only took an order from the High Court for the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner; rather, it was only after contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondents vide contempt application filed in the year 2022 that the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been processed. Thus, clearly the delay is on the part of the respondents. Even the certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of the petitioner being unable to earn his livelihood on account of his physical disability, was asked by the respondents only in the year 2022 and the same was subsequently submitted by the petitioner. As such, the same would not resile from the fact of complete silence which had been maintained by the respondents for a period of almost five years in not processing the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.

14. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for the family pension on account of his physical disability and of he being unable to earn his livelihood as per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The disability certificate of the petitioner is of 21.07.2006. Thus, the physical disability existed all along, which 6 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 has also been certified by the Chief Medical Officer as being of such a nature that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood as per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated 21.09.2022.

15. Thus, the Court is of the view that once the delay has been at the end of the official respondents themselves, consequently, no premium can be placed on their inaction in the matter so as to deprive the petitioner of the arrears of family pension.

16. The next question which arises is as to the date from which the petitioner would be entitled to family pension.

17. There is no dispute that the petitioner had only applied for family pension after the death of his father vide his application on

01.12.2017. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to be paid the arrears of family pension with effect from December 2017 till

14.06.2022.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authorities, who are said to be respondents No.6 and 7, to process the claim of the petitioner for arrears of family pension with effect from the month of December 2017 till 14.06.2022.

19. Let the claim be processed and the payments made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

20. While making the arrears of family pension, the respondents would also consider the payment of interest at admissible rates, more particularly since the delay has occurred at the end of the respondents themselves. September 11, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

It is contended that though the petitioner has been granted family pension vide Pension Payment Order dated 05.08.2022, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the writ petition w.e.f August 2022 yet he would be entitled for the arrears for the period from 2013 to 2022 i.e from the death of his father till the pension was actually sanctioned. Learned counsel for the respondents has however, placed reliance on the Government order dated 15.06.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition to contend that it would be a prospective effect. However, perusal of the said Government order would indicate that it has been issued in pursuance to the certain earlier Government orders of the years 1981, 1997 etc. Upon the same being pointed out, learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to file a supplementary counter affidavit duly bringing on record the aforesaid Government orders and any other Government order which may have some relevance to the facts of the instant case. As the matter has been heard at length as such, list this case on

04.08.2025 at 0215 PM for further hearing. .......... In pursuance to order dated 14.07.2025 Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 has produced the Government Orders of the year 1981, 1997 etc as referred to in the impugned Government Order dated 15.06.2022. Incidentally Government Order of the year 1981 i.e. 06.08.1981 is already on record as annexure 7. Perusal of the same indicates that earlier the grant of family pension to disabled wards of deceased employee was only admittedly up to the age of 18 years and 21 years for the son and the daughter respectively but by 3 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 means of Government Order dated 06.08.1981 the same was made admissible without any age limit provided the ward is suffering from physical disability on account of which he is unable to earn his employment. The Government Order dated 06.08.1981 provided that the said physical disability should have accrued prior to retirement or during the service period of the employee. By means of Government Order dated 12.11.1997 it was provided that even if the disability to the ward may have accrued subsequent to the retirement of the employee then too the ward would be eligible for family pension. By means of Government Order dated 27.10.2016 it was provided that in case the disabled daughter got married then family pension will not be stopped rather it would continue, meaning thereby that irrespective of the marriage of the disabled ward the family pension would continue. By means of impugned Government Order dated 15.06.2022 it was provided that the term used in the earlier Government Orders as ?unable to earn livelihood? which 'livelihood' was quantified as an amount not exceeding 30% of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee and the dearness allowance upon the same i.e. the income receivable by the disabled employee should not exceed 30% plus dearness allowance of the last pay drawn by the employee. The petitioner has only been granted family pension with effect from June 2022 i.e. the date of issuance of Government Order dated 15.06.2022 yet seeks family pension with effect from death of his father i.e. 26.09.2013. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had earlier applied for grant of family pension for which a letter dated

21.02.2018 was issued by the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Hardoi, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition and even earlier too the petitioner applied but the respondents did not pay any heed on the application of the petitioner and have only granted family pension with effect from June 2022. Thus in order to find out as to whether the petitioner has ever applied for grant of family pension on the basis of the disability certificate which has been issued on 21.07.2006 4 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 respondents no. 5 and 6 file short counter affidavit in this regard positively within two weeks. As the matter has been heard at length, list this case on

11.09.2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing. On that date the records pertaining to the petitioner shall also be produced before this Court. At this stage Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents points out that as per the succession certificate, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, it emerges that the petitioner was having an elder brother aged about 24 years and as such at the first instance pension would be payable to the petitioner's brother till the age of 25 years. As such the affidavit to be filed by the respondent would also indicate the respective dates to which family pension was paid to the other family members of the retired employee."

7. From a perusal of the aforesaid orders, it emerges that the petitioner, in the capacity of being the physically handicapped son of Sri Balbhadra Prasad Gupta, who was working as a Principal in the institution governed by respondent No.6, is before this Court claiming family pension on account of his physical disability.

8. Admittedly, the respondents have sanctioned family pension to the petitioner with effect from 15.06.2022 and the petitioner has staked his claim for payment of arrears with effect from 27.09.2013 to 14.06.2022.

9. The petitioner’s father died on 26.09.2013 and hence the claim for family pension with effect from 27.09.2013.

10. From the short counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it emerges that, admittedly, the petitioner had applied for family pension on account of his disability for the first time on 01.12.2017. A copy of the application form is annexure-SCA-6 to the short counter affidavit.

11. The respondents sat over the matter and it was only when the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2021 by filing Writ Petition No.31032 (S/S) of 2021, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 with a direction to the District Basic 5 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 Education Office to decide the representation of the petitioner, which too was not decided, which constrained the petitioner to file Contempt Application (Civil) No.946 of 2022 and it was only during pendency of the contempt application that the respondents, after requiring the petitioner to complete the formalities, have sanctioned family pension with effect from 15.06.2022.

12. The reason as to why it took the respondents almost five years to sanction family pension to the petitioner is indicated that the petitioner was required to submit a certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of not being able to earn his livelihood on account of his physical disability, which was only submitted in the year 2022 and thereafter the family pension was sanctioned.

13. The aforesaid ground as taken by the learned counsel for the respondents of having taken almost five years to process the claim of the petitioner for family pension is found to be fallacious, inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner had applied for grant of family pension on to why the respondents 01.12.2017. No reasons emerge as continued to sit over the matter and it not only took an order from the High Court for the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner; rather, it was only after contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondents vide contempt application filed in the year 2022 that the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been processed. Thus, clearly the delay is on the part of the respondents. Even the certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of the petitioner being unable to earn his livelihood on account of his physical disability, was asked by the respondents only in the year 2022 and the same was subsequently submitted by the petitioner. As such, the same would not resile from the fact of complete silence which had been maintained by the respondents for a period of almost five years in not processing the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.

14. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for the family pension on account of his physical disability and of he being unable to earn his livelihood as per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The disability certificate of the petitioner is of 21.07.2006. Thus, the physical disability existed all along, which 6 WRIA No. 2717 of 2023 has also been certified by the Chief Medical Officer as being of such a nature that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood as per the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated 21.09.2022.

15. Thus, the Court is of the view that once the delay has been at the end of the official respondents themselves, consequently, no premium can be placed on their inaction in the matter so as to deprive the petitioner of the arrears of family pension.

16. The next question which arises is as to the date from which the petitioner would be entitled to family pension.

17. There is no dispute that the petitioner had only applied for family pension after the death of his father vide his application on

01.12.2017. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to be paid the arrears of family pension with effect from December 2017 till

14.06.2022.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authorities, who are said to be respondents No.6 and 7, to process the claim of the petitioner for arrears of family pension with effect from the month of December 2017 till 14.06.2022.

19. Let the claim be processed and the payments made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

20. While making the arrears of family pension, the respondents would also consider the payment of interest at admissible rates, more particularly since the delay has occurred at the end of the respondents themselves. September 11, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench