Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41884 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8375 of 2010 Petitioner :- Krishna Chand Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Basic Education Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- T.N.Yadav,Ravi Shanker Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Prashant Singh,R.P.Verma Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 03.07.2025, Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, has filed a short counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 3. The petitioner claims family pension after the death of his father on account of being physically disabled. 4. The family pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner vide the order dated 29.06.2010, a copy of which is annexure-SCA-2 to the short counter affidavit filed today. 5. Perusal of the said order indicates that the petitioner has been sanctioned family pension at the rate of Rs.2,796/- per month with effect from 23.05.2006. 6. Earlier, the petitioner had indicated that although family pension is in fact being paid to him since 13.10.2010, yet once the respondents have sanctioned family pension with effect from 23.05.2006, consequently, the arrears from 23.05.2006 till 12.10.2010 have not been paid to him. 7. Considering this, the Court required the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 to file an affidavit indicating the aforesaid, and in pursuance thereof, a short counter affidavit has been filed. 8. Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, states on the basis of the averments contained in paragraph 10 that arrears from 23.05.2006 to 31.12.2006 and from 01.01.2007 (wrongly typed as 01.01.2006) to 30.06.2010, amounting to Rs.17,786/- and Rs.67,665/- respectively, have already been credited to the account of the petitioner. In support thereof, the relevant extract of the account ledger enquiry has also been filed as annexure-SCA-4 to indicate the deposit of the aforesaid amounts. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the aforesaid amount has been deposited in the account of the petitioner, but states that once the family pension as sanctioned to the petitioner vide order dated 29.06.2010 is Rs. 2,796/-, consequently, the amount which is being shown by the respondents to have been deposited in the account of the petitioner would not equate with the amount of Rs. 2,796/- per month, which is to be paid as arrears for a period of 52 months. However, the number of months for which arrears are payable is said to be 49 months, as per the statement of Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4. 10. As the respondents have already paid the family pension along with the arrears but the dispute is raised regarding the calculation thereto, consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority, which is said to be the Finance & Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha, Ambedkar Nagar, to recalculate the amount of arrears which are payable to the petitioner after considering the number of months for which the arrears were due and to inform the petitioner about the same in case the calculation has been made correctly by the respondents. In case the calculation has been made erroneously, the arrears that fall due would be payable to the petitioner. 11. Let the competent authority comply with the aforesaid order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. In case the competent authority requires any relevant documents from the petitioner, the same would also be provided by the petitioner during the aforesaid period. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 22.7.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench