Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39898 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7528 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Pratibha Singh Respondent :- The Prin. Secy. Finance Rural Engineering Services Deptt. Lko. 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 6. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to enter name of petitioner as nominee and legally wedded wife of opposite party no.7, Mr. Shriprakash Singh in his official service pension records. Direction is also being sought to record the names of certain persons as dependent family members in the pension documents. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner is claiming to be the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.7 who has already superannuated from service but has not nominated with petitioner in his service records. It is submitted that petitioner being a legally wedded wife of the said person as an inherent right to be entered in the service records as a nominee. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by High Court of Delhi in the case of G.L. Bhatia versus Union of India & Anr., 1998 VAD (Delhi) 869. 4. Mr. Aditya Dwivedi, learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that once the alleged husband of petitioner is admittedly alive and drawing pension, it is only the said person who can enter details of nominee in his service records and that petitioner does not have any inherent right for the same. 5. Upon considerations of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner is claiming to be the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.7 who is admittedly alive and drawing pension after his superannuation from department. It also appears that petitioner despite being claiming to be his legally wedded wife is not entered in the service record as a nominee. Learned counsel has been unable to indicate any specific right accrued in favour of petitioner which would compel the opposite party no.7, who is a private individual to submit an application for recording petitioner as his nominee. 6. The judgment of G.L. Bhatia (supra) is clearly inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case where the husband of petitioner had passed away prior to filing of the writ petition and the petitioner was admittedly his widow. 7. In the present case, since petitioner's husband is admittedly alive and drawing pensionary benefits but has not deemed it fit to record petitioner as his nominee, this Court cannot issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to a private individual to compel him to record petitioner as his nominee in his service documents. 8. In view thereof, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, this order shall not bar any subsequent nomination in favour of petitioner, in case the opposite party no.7, Mr. Shriprakash Singh files any such application for indicating petitioner as his nominee. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench