AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge directing family pension to be paid to the Respondent on the death of her husband, who was a government servant along with simple interest @ 8% per annum is the subject matter of the present appeal.
This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent.
It is seen that the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on the very first date of listing without waiting for any reply from the present Appellants. The above directions were issued only because the representations made by the Respondent were purportedly pending with the Government for a long time.
Had an opportunity been given to the Appellants for filing a reply, it would have become evident that her husband was not even entitled to the pension in the first place, since consequent upon his conviction in a criminal case under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, he was in fact dismissed from service. Against the dismissal order dated 6th July, 2009 the husband of the Respondent filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed on 5th October, 2009. These facts are unable to be disputed by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. In terms of Rule 33 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 there was no question of the Respondent’s husband being entitled to any pension.
Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
……………………………..