Dependents of deceased aided-school teachers are entitled to family pension irrespective of the teacher’s date of death.

The petitioner, Smt. Khasti Devi, was the widow of late Khyali Dutt Joshi, an Assistant Teacher who had initially been appointed on 30 August 1961 and had served for approximately 27 years before his death on 9 January 1988.

His service was initially under the District Board and subsequently came under the Board of Basic Education pursuant to the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.

The petitioner claimed family pension under the Triple Benefit Scheme formulated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17 December 1965, as extended and clarified by Government Orders dated 31 March 1982 and 16 June 1984.

The writ petition was initially disposed of on 12 April 2017 on the basis of Smt. Parvati Pandey v. State of Uttaranchal & Others. The order was set aside in Special Appeal No. 147 of 2018 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Whether the petitioner, as the widow of a deceased Assistant Teacher who died on 9 January 1988, was entitled to family pension under the applicable Triple Benefit Scheme and Government Orders dated 31 March 1982 and 16 June 1984.

Whether the petitioner’s claim was governed by the judgment in Smt. Jeewanti Devi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, rather than the judgment in Smt. Parvati Pandey v. State of Uttaranchal & Others.

The Court applied the Triple Benefit Scheme formulated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17 December 1965, which provided for family pension to eligible employees of aided educational institutions, including employees of the Board of Basic Education.

It further relied on the Government Orders dated 31 March 1982 and 16 June 1984, the latter clarifying that dependants of deceased teachers were entitled to family pension irrespective of whether the teacher died before or after 1 October 1981.

The Court also applied the precedent in Smt. Jeewanti Devi v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, WPMB No. 445 of 2002, decided on 28 October 2004, which was accepted as governing the petitioner’s claim.

The petitioner’s husband was an Assistant Teacher covered by the relevant educational-service pension framework and had died after substantial service.

The Government Order dated 16 June 1984, as relied upon by the petitioner, removed the apparent distinction based on whether the teacher’s death occurred before or after 1 October 1981; consequently, the fact that the petitioner’s husband died in 1988 did not defeat her claim.

Following remand, the Court noted that the parties did not dispute that the petitioner’s case was covered by Jeewanti Devi.

It therefore treated that precedent, rather than Parvati Pandey, as controlling and disposed of the petition in its terms.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in those terms, and the respondents were directed to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date on which a certified copy of the order was produced.