Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 147078 (ALL)

SMT. SARASWATI SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE and ORS.

WRIA/25072/2018 · 2025-03-27

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17634 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25072 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Saraswati Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 4.7.2018 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Faizabad. A further writ in the nature of mandamus has also been prayed to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's case for grant of family pension and also clear the arrears thereof. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Awadh Bali Singh, husband of the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer from district Faizabad on 31.7.1992. During service, his first wife died and he remarried to the petitioner on 20.8.1992 after retirement. He died on 24.5.2007. After death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.3 for grant of family pension. Even her husband gave an application on 31.3.1997 to Consolidation Commissioner, respondent No.4 to the effect that after his death, the petitioner be provided his family pension. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be given family pension being the wife of her late husband. Learned standing counsel has opposed the petition and submits that name of the petitioner does not find place in the service record of Awadh Bali Singh and the petitioner has not been able to procure succession certificate so that her case for family pension may be considered and as such by the impugned order, her claim has been rejected. Relevant extract of the impugned order is extracted below : " पपशन ननददेशशालय उत्तर प्रददेश आठवशावां तल इननदरशा भवन लखनऊ कदे पतशावांक - पदे0 नन0101/एम 0 आई 0-15012 /2014/7882 नदनशावांक-24.12.2014 दशारशा शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह कदे प्रशाररनशापत नदनशावांक -25.09.2014 कदे क्रम मप शशासनशाददेशशों कदे अननुसशार आवश्यक जशावांच कर ददेयतशा ककी नस्रनत मप शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ददेवश्री ककी पशाररवशाररक पपशन स्वश्रीकक त्त नकयदे जशानदे हदेतनु ननरशारररत पपशन प्रपतशों पर प्रस्तशाव प्रदेनषित करनदे कशा ननदरश नदयशा गयशा शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह कदे दशारशा अपनदे प्रशाररनशापत कदे सशार नववशाह अननुबनर प्रमशाण पत हश्री प्रस्तनुत नकयशा गयशा रशा। स्व० अवरवलश्री ससवांह , सहशायक बनददोबस्त असरकशारश्री चकबनदश्री कदे सदेवशा अनभलदेखशों तरशा पपशन प्रपत पतसवांख्यशा -871/मनु०सल०-पशाररवशाररक पपशन/2015 नदनशावांक 17 जनवरश्री, 2015 व पत सवांख्यशा -1301/मनु०सल०/पपशन/2016 नदनशावांक 12 अप्रप्रैल, 2016 दशारशा ममूल अनभलदेखशों कदे सशार उपनस्रत हदोनदे कशा ननदरश नदयशा गयशा परनतनु शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह दशारशा स्व० अवरवलश्री ससवांह कशा सम्बनर / वशाररस प्रमशाणपत उपलब्र नहश्री करशायशा गयशा। इस प्रकशार प्रकरण ककी नववदेचनशा सदे स्पष्ट हप्रै नक प्रयशारप्त समय ददेनदे कदे बशाद भश्री शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह दशारशा स्व०अवरवलश्री ससवांह कशा सम्बनर / वशाररस प्रमशाण पत प्रस्तनुत न कर पशानदे कदे कशारण ददेयतशा ससद्ध नहश्री हदो पशायश्री हप्रै सजस कशारण शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह दशारशा नदनशावांक-25.09.2014 कदो पपशन ननददेशशालय उत्तर प्रददेश लखनऊ कदो सवांबदोसरत प्रशाररनशापत व मशाननश्रीय उच्च नयशायशालय खण्डपश्रीठ लखनऊ बपच लखनऊ कदे ररट यशानचकशा सवांख्यशा-8159/2017 शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह बनशाम सरकशार उ०प्र० मप पशाररत आददेश नदनशावांक-13.12.2018 कदे अननुपशालन मप नदनशावांक -26.12.2017 कदो प्रस्तनुत प्रशाररनशापत कदे पररप्रदेक्ष्य मप ददेयतशा ससद्ध न हदोनदे कदे कशारण पशाररवशाररक पपशन ददेनदे पर नवचशार नहहीं नकयशा जशा सकतशा हप्रै। तदद ननुसशार शश्रीमतश्री सरस्वतश्री ससवांह दशारशा नदनशावांक -25.09.2014 व 26.12.2017 कदो पशाररवशाररक पपशन ददेनदे कशा प्रस्तनुत प्रशाररनशापत ननस्तशाररत नकयशा जशातशा हप्रै।" From perusal of the record, it is evident that late Awadh Bali Singh died on 24.5.2007. The petitioner apparently is his second wife. Name of the petitioner does not find place in the service record of her late husband, i.e. Awadh Bali Singh. The petitioner has also not appeared before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Faizabad along with original succession certificate of her late husband. For this reason, the claim of the petitioner for family pension appears to have been rejected. I find no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench