Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18518-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 121 of 2025 Appellant :- Urvashi Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Fuhar Gupta,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard Ms. Fuhar Gupta and Sri Sushil Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Praful Yadav learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2025 whereby the claim of family pension made by the appellant before the writ court has been turned down on the ground that the same does not stand the test of statutory rules applicable in this behalf unless a declaration was sought by the appellant before the competent court of civil jurisdiction regarding her marriage being 'legitimate'. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant claims to have married to one Dr. Ram Babu. During the subsistence of his first marriage. The name of his first wife Ms. Sharda Devi was duly entered in the service record as wife/nominee for the purposes of all post retiral benefits. Dr. Ram Babu to whom the appellant claims to have married retired from service in the month of July, 2007. At the time of his retirement from service, the benefit of post retiral dues devolved upon the deceased employee himself. 4. The averments made in the writ petion further reveal that the first wife of Dr. Ram Babu died in the year 2011. The co-habitation of the appellant with Dr. Ram Babu is stated to have continued for a considerable peirod inasmuch as a daughter namely Ankur Dubey is stated to have born out of this cohabitation/second marriage on 20.8.1997. It is stated in the writ petition that the co-habitation between the appellant and Dr. Ram Babu continued after his retirement and more particularly after the death of his first wife in the year 2011. Dr. Ram Babu is stated to have died on 28.11.2022. At the time of death of Dr. Ram Babu, all his children either from the first wife or from the alleged second marriage had attained the age of majority and thus they could not be treated to be dependents of the deceased pensioner insofar as the claim of family pension is concerned. 5. It is in these circumstances that a claim of family pension was raised by the appellate-petitioner which was rejected by the department vide order dated 8.12.2023. The order passed by the departmental authorities on 8.12.2023 gave rise to a writ petition i.e. Writ A No. 2309 of 2025 which was dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. We have carefully gone through the judgment rendered by the writ court. The writ court having regard to the statutory rules applicable on the subject of family pension has considered the entitlement of the appellant- petitioner and the rules not being in favour of such a claim has ultimately dismissed the writ petion as bereft of any merit. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition on merit, the writ court has left it open for the appellant to seek a declaration from the competent court of civil jurisdiction as regards her marital status and on such an adjudication being made, the claim has been left open to be laid before the competent authority. 7. Though it is a peculiar case where no other family member is claiming the benefit of family pension yet the appellant who is stated to have cohabited with the deceased employee for decades stands deprived of legitimate expectation. All legitimate expectations cannot be construed to be valid unless the rules support such an expectation. Any justification on equitable consideration cannot be read contrary to the rules, therefore, for extending any benefit on the touchstone of equitable consideration, this Court cannot opine anything contrary to the law unless there is a valid declaration by the competent civil court. The living together of the two remains a question of fact even if a Will was executed by the deceased employee as has been taken note of by the writ court. 8. In the circumstances of the case while upholding the judgment/order passed by the writ court, we leave it open to the appellant to seek an appropriate remedy of declaration before the competent civil court and in case any such proceedings are initiated within a period of one month from today, the competent civil court shall culminate the proceedings so instituted expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of its institution. 9. The intra court appeal is accordingly disposed of. . [Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 3.4.2025 kanhaiya Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench