In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, restored the family pension of Smt. Chandrakanti Devi, ruling that beneficial provisions must be interpreted broadly to serve their intended purpose. The judgment, delivered by Justice Manish Mathur, quashed the State’s order withdrawing the family pension granted to the petitioner in 2007.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Chandrakanti Devi, filed a writ petition challenging the State’s order dated May 11, 2016, which withdrew the family pension granted to her earlier by an order dated September 3, 2007. Smt. Devi’s husband, late Sudhakar Pandey, was employed as an Assistant Teacher and had passed away while in service on January 10, 1977, after rendering just about three years of service.
Initially, Smt. Devi was not granted the benefit of family pension, which led her to file Writ Petition No. 6068 (S/S) of 2004. The court directed the concerned authorities to consider her claim, resulting in the grant of family pension in 2007. However, the pension was later withdrawn following an inquiry ordered in a separate case involving another similarly situated individual, Smt. Phoolmati Devi.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the family pension granted to the petitioner under the Government Order dated March 31, 1982, as made retrospective by another order dated June 16, 1984, should apply to cases where the employee had died before rendering 20 years of service, as per the earlier Government Order dated December 17, 1965.
The petitioner argued that the Government Order dated March 31, 1982, allowed for family pension eligibility if the deceased employee had rendered at least one year of continuous service, making the 1982 scheme applicable to her case. The State, however, contended that despite the retrospective application, eligibility must still align with the conditions of the 1965 order, which required 20 years of service.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Mathur ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the 1982 Government Order, which significantly lowered the service requirement for family pension eligibility to one year, must be applied with full retrospective effect as intended by the 1984 order. The court emphasized that the retrospective application of beneficial provisions is intended to rectify defects in the earlier legal framework that unfairly excluded families of employees who died early in their service.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s stance on beneficial legislation, Justice Mathur observed, “Beneficial provisions must be applied with the widest amplitude to achieve their intended purpose. Narrow interpretations defeat the objective of such provisions.” The court criticized the narrow application of the law, noting that the State’s interpretation effectively denied benefits to the most deserving—those families whose sole breadwinner passed away unexpectedly.
The court further underscored the principles of natural justice, highlighting that the withdrawal of vested benefits without proper notice or opportunity to the affected party was unjust. Citing precedents, the court held that administrative decisions affecting civil rights must adhere to fair procedures, ensuring that affected parties are heard.
In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned order dated May 11, 2016, and directed the State to restore the family pension to Smt. Chandrakanti Devi within eight weeks. The ruling not only reinstates Smt. Devi’s pension but also sets a precedent for the broad application of beneficial provisions in welfare legislation.
The case was argued by Mr. Sharad Pathak, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, representing the State. The decision is likely to impact numerous similar cases where family pensions were withheld under restrictive interpretations of retrospective welfare provisions.
