Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Urmila Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U P And 4 Others - Respondent
Writ A No.5545 of 2021
Decided on : 24-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Writ - Pension
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH RETIREMENT BENEFIT RULES: R.3(3), R.6, R.6(5), R.7, R.7(3)
Headnote
(B) Family pension legal entitlement - Family pension cannot be revoked by unilateral actions of the deceased under any declaration or nomination. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, applied for family pension post his death. Her claim was rejected due to her name's absence in the pension application of her husband.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s application for family pension was not appropriately considered, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a family pension despite technicalities concerning pension documentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The family pension is a statutory right of a legally wedded spouse and cannot be denied based on the deceased's failure to nominate them.
Result: Writ petition allowed; family pension to be released to the petitioner.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitendra Prasad,Niraj Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Jay Ram Pandey
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to pension refusal based on application details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the petitioner’s entitlement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal definitions and implications of family pension. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. recognition of family pension as a statutory right. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 5. court's ruling based on the legal status as wife. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final decision to grant family pension. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging an order dated 21.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 – Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur, vide which the claim of the petitioner for payment of family pension has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Basic School run by Basic Shiksha Parishad and was superannuated on 31.03.2016, after which he was getting pension. He passed away on 29.11.2019, therefore, his wife (petitioner herein) became entitled for family pension. The petitioner (wife) moved an application requesting for sanction of family pension. However, her claim of family pension been rejected vide order impugned dated 21.09.2020 on the ground that in the application requesting for payment of pension as moved by the petitioner’s husband, in the column ‘details of family’ in Part-I, name of the petitioner has not been mentioned. As neither in Part-III of the application, photo of the petitioner has been pasted nor her name finds place in the earlier pension papers which were submitted by her husband for sanction of pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, admittedly, the petitioner is wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, which has been certified by the Gram Pradhan of the village. Name of petitioner’s husband has been mentioned in the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner. Even in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been granted maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month which proves that she is the wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, hence she is entitled for family pension.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the special circumstances, where it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh and the son, who was 34 years old at the time of death of Prabhu Narayan Singh, was not entitled for family pension, the respondent authorities ought to have verified the fact, which has already been certified by the Gram Pradhan and the judgement dated 20.08.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Application No. 404 of 2014, Smt. Urmila Singh v. Prabhu Narayan Singh, and should have released the family pension in favour of the petitioner. However, the respondent authority without taking note of the said relevant material, has proceeded to reject the petitioner’s claim sans application of mind.
5. Placing reliance upon the Pension Payment Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, is entitled for pension.
6. Learned counsel for the Basic Education Department i.e. respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned as the deceased government servant has not mentioned name of the petitioner in his application requesting for pension. In Part-III of the pension application, name of Atul Kumar Singh has been mentioned as the applicant for family pension, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any such claim being sought for in the writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, and perused the record.
8. The family pension is governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961[The Rules, 1961] ‘Family' is
