Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9122 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7097 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shail Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Singh,Rama Kant Dixit,Vinay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4. 2. Despite notice having been sent to the respondent No.3 and as per the office report dated 13.05.2019, the same having been deemed served, nobody has responded on behalf of the respondent No.3. 3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally. 4. Learned counsels for the parties state that the facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order of this Court dated 04.02.2025. 5. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 04.02.2025 is reproduced below: "Heard. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), 6th Division, Lucknow as respondent no. 4 during the course of the day. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite her husband, Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma who was working on a Class-IV post having died in harness 04.05.2017, his dues have still not been paid to the petitioner, the widow. In the short counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 it has been indicated in paragraph 8 that the family pension matter of the petitioner has been decided by the respondent no. 2 and a letter dated 02.09.2023 has been issued, a copy of which is annexure SCA 1 to the short counter affidavit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards the averments made in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein it has been indicated that the petitioner has still not been paid the family pension and the same has been returned by the Joint Director of Pension to the office of the answering respondents raising certain objections and the same have still not been removed consequently, the petitioner has still not been paid the family pension and other dues. On the same being pointed out, learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to either seek instructions or file a supplementary counter affidavit indicating as to the impediment in the payment of the family pension and other dues to the petitioner. As the matter has been heard at length, list this case on 12.02.2025 at 0215 PM or after fresh cases for further hearing." 6. Today, learned Standing counsel states, on the basis of instructions sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Unnao dated 10.02.2025, that on checking of the records, it transpired that the Committee of Management had sent a proposal for dismissal of the petitioner's husband namely Virendra Kumar Sharma as emerges from the letter dated 15.02.2023 sent by the Committee of Management. However, the records are not available. 7. Responding to that, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there could not have been any occasion for the dismissal of the petitioner's husband inasmuch as, as per the specific averment made in paragraph 6 of the petition, the petitioner's son namely Shri Rohit Sharma had been appointed on compassionate grounds in an Institution which is other than the Institution in which the petitioner's husband had been working. Thus, once the petitioner's son has been appointed on compassionate grounds, consequently, there could not have been any occasion for a compassionate appointment to be made of a person who had been dismissed from service meaning thereby that the DIOS himself had not approved the proposal, if any, sent by the Committee of Management for the dismissal of the petitioner's husband and as such, it would be deemed that the petitioner's husband continued all along in service and thereafter died. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that despite the respondents themselves, vide order dated 02.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, have indicated the admissibility of the pension to the petitioner but for the fact that certain objections have been raised, the matter has been returned back by the competent authority to the office of the DIOS for removal of the said objections. 9. 9. It cannot be a case of the respondents that the matter pertaining to family pension of the petitioner is passed on from one desk to the other amongst the respondents themselves without any final order and decision being taken regarding payment of family pension, more particularly, when the admissibility of the family pension on the part of the respondents is not disputed. 10. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 i.e. Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Lucknow to pay family pension and other post retiral dues along with admissible interest to the petitioner in accordance with rules provided there is no legal impediment. Let such payment be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order . Order Date :- 12.2.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench