JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Satyendra Singh, learned counsels for the petitioner, Shri Sri Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and Shri Abhinav Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority and the learned Senior Counsel for the state respondents.

2. The petitioner, primarily seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to compute her pension/family pension admissible her as per the Government Orders applicable to the Government Servants, issued from time to time.

3. The facts that emerge from the pleadings and averments of the learned counsel for the parties, briefly stated, is that the husband of the petitioner, Shri Surendra Singh, a member of the Development Authorities Centralized Services (Centralized Services) of the Development Authority, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 September 2001, from the post of Chief Engineer at Allahabad Development Authority (Development Authority) (presently Prayagraj Development Authority). The employee rendered 24 years 5 months and 5 days qualifying service. The last basic salary drawn by the employee was at Rs. 16,300/- in the pay-scale 14300-400-18300.

4. Pursuant to Government Orders dated 17 March 1983 and 29 September 1983, the employees of the Centralized Services retiring from Development Authorities were paid pension at par with Government Servants until 4 April 1999. The State Government vide Government Order dated 5 April 1999, withdrew the pension of the employees of the Development Authorities. Aggrieved, the association of pensioners challenged the Government Order in Praveen Kumar Agrawal vs. State of U.P. 2011 ILR (1) All 21, decided on 20 November 2010.

5. The Court quashed the Government Order dated 5 April 1999. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

"A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 5.4.1999 and 9.11.2004 with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure the payment of regular pension to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees forthwith in accordance with Rules applicable to Government employees. Let decision be taken in pursuance of the observations made in the body of the present judgment expeditiously say, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Respondents shall also ensure the payment of arrears of salary expeditiously say, within six months."

6. Consequently, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 read with Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Development Act, 1973), framed the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralized Services Retirement Rules, 2011 (Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011). In compliance of the judgment and pursuant to Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 1 of the Retirement Benefit. Rules, 2011, Government Order dated 22 December 2011, came to be issued by the State Government conferring pension to all the employees of the Development Authorities, including those, who retired prior to the commencement of the Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011.

7. Pursuant to the Government Order and Retirement Benefit Rules, 2011, husband of the petitioner made an application on 6 February 2012, in the prescribed proforma for computation of his pension. However, died on 29 July 2012, before the pension could be sanctioned. After the death of her husband, petitioner applied for arrears of pension and family pension. The respondent authorities kept the matter pending. The fourth respondent, Finance Controller, Allahabad Development Authority, for the first time on 19 December 2015 sent the Pension Pay Order (PPO) to the office of the fifth respondent, Finance Con