JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the sixth, seventh and eighth respondent.

2. The husband of the petitioner, Sri Baijnath Gupta was appointed Assistant Teacher in an Intermediate Institution in 1972, he retired on 30 June 2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. He, however, died on 26 November 2015, leaving behind his sole legal heir i.e. petitioner. It appears that a dispute arose between the petitioner and other claimants i.e. sixth, seventh and eighth respondent claiming right and title to the movable and immovable property of the petitioner, including, family pension. The sixth and seventh respondent claim to be the nephew, sons of the elder brother of the deceased/employee, whereas, eighth respondent Smt. Gayatri Devi claims to be the second wife of Baijnath Gupta.

3. Family pension of the petitioner was not released due to the dispute, inter se, parties. Aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition bearing Writ-A No. 46447 of 2016 (Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. and 4 others) which was disposed of directing the fifth respondent Senior Treasury Officer, Banda, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to her entitlement of family pension. Pursuant thereof, by the impugned order dated 5 December 2016, the fifth respondent declined to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner due to the pending litigations, inter se, contesting parties in various forums including this Court and the Civil Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute between the contesting parties that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased/employee, the dispute has been raised by the nephews and a stranger (eighth respondent) to deny the petitioner of her right to family pension. It is, further, urged that the eighth respondent claiming to be the second wife is not entitled to family pension. The marriage solemnized after 1956 by a Hindu having a living spouse is void marriage and would not confer any right upon the eighth respondent. The sixth and seventh respondent being nephew do not fall within the definition of 'family' under the Pension Rules, therefore, are not entitled to family pension. It is, further, urged that the sixth and eighth respondent had filed a petition bearing Writ-A No. 32931 of 2016 (Ajay Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and others) claiming pension and other retiral dues of the deceased/employee, however, the writ petition came be dismissed as not pressed (Withdrawal Application No. 275502 of 2016). The sixth and seventh respondent have instituted a civil suit being Suit No. 231 of 2016 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda, seeking mandatory prohibitory/injunction and declaration in respect of the right and title of movable and immovable property of Baijnath Gupta, the deceased/employee. The pension and other post retiral dues admissible to Baijnath Gupta has also been claimed.

5. In this backdrop, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pending suit instituted by sixth and seventh respondent would have no bearing on the entitlement of the petitioner to family pension as the contesting private respondents do not fall within the definition of 'family', and the second wife of the employee is not entitled to family pension under the Rules, further, she has withdrawn her writ petition and no suit has been instituted by her.

6. Learned counsel for the State-respondent submits that due to pendency of the litigations between the parties in various forums, the fifth respondent by way of caution denied the family pension to the petitioner, and has made the impugned order subject to the outcome of the pending litigations.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is the