Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48634 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9209 of 2025 Petitioner :- Malti Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 while power on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been filed by Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate, which is taken on record. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to authority concerned to conduct proper enquiry with regard to nomination of opposite party no.4 Smt. Poonam Dwivedi in the Service Book of late Late Ram Shiromani Dwivedi who was son of petitioner. A further prayer for a direction not to provide benefit of being nominee to opposite party no.4 has also been made. 3. Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 assisted by Mr. Vijay Nandan Mani Tripathi, learned counsel at the very outset has raised a question with regard to maintainability of this petition in view of fact that petitioner's earlier representation has already been rejected on 10.06.2025 which has not been challenged though it has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is mother of the deceased while opposite party no.4 is wife of deceased being the daughter in law of petitioner. It is submitted that although opposite party no.4 is the nominee in service book of the deceased but her status is only as a trustee and petitioner would also have right over the property of her deceased-son. It is also submitted that the deceased during his life time had informed petitioner that she has been entered as a nominee in service book and therefore was quite surprised to find name of opposite party no.4 recorded in the service book after demise of her son. It is therefore alleged that the said entries in the service book are clearly forged. 5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 8th July 2025, which is taken on record and as per which, the earlier representation submitted by petitioner was examined, but it was found that the deceased had clearly nominated his wife not only in the service book but also on the e-portal and therefore, no forgery was found in the aforesaid entries, due to which petitioner's earlier representation was rejected vide order dated 10th June 2025. It is also submitted that apart from deceased, petitioner has another son, namely Mr. Ram Prakash and her husband Mr. Arjun Prasad Dwivedi, who is also alive and is in receipt of pension. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 reiterating his preliminary objection also submits that petitioner was in no manner dependent upon the deceased. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that petitioner's earlier representation has already been rejected, as indicated herein above but has not been challenged. It is also noticeable from the instructions provided to learned State Counsel that petitioner was in no manner dependent upon the deceased, since her husband and the other son are already alive, with her husband in receipt of pension. 8. A perusal of instructions as well as the order dated 10th June 2025 makes it evident that the deceased has indicated the name of his wife as nominee not only in the service book but also in the human resources portal. Aforesaid aspect clearly indicates that double entries with regard to the same nomination has been made by the deceased when he was alive. The order clearly indicates that there is no forgery or interpolation regarding the nominee. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that petitioner has absolutely no rights over the service benefits of the deceased, late Ram Shiromani Dwivedi . 10. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition being misconceived is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench