Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53669 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1214 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kusum Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Murti Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Om Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijaykant, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Vishnu Murti Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Kushwaha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to decide the family pension of the petitioner in respect of her late husband who retired from the respondent establishment as Chowkidaar. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the controversy is no more res integra as the petitioner's husband was a daily wage employee and the petitions in regard to regularisation of such employee being Writ A No.17904 of 2020 alongwith connected matter has come to be finally decided on 30.01.2025 in which vide paragraph nos.42 and 43 it has been observed thus: "42. Having considered the merits of the matter, now the Court proceeds to see as to whether any benefits can be given to the three sets of employees who are before this Court namely (A) the petitioners who have retired prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 18.08.2020 & 20.08.2020 and have received their retiral dues and are in receipt of pension (B) the petitioners who have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation during pendency of the instant writ petition and (C) the petitioners who are in service. 43. With regard to the employees in category (A) i.e the petitioners who have retired prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 18.08.2020 & 20.08.2020 and have received their retiral dues and are in receipt of pension, as the said petitioners have received pension, gratuity and other benefits even prior to passing of the orders impugned consequently, this Court while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India finds that it would be inequitable that the benefits that have already been given to them should be withdrawn. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above facts. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands consigned to records in the light of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash and Others (supra). Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad