Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 163840 (ALL)

URMILA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. CO-OPERATIVE DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/10523/2025 · 2025-09-10

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10523 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for payment of regular pension, arrears thereof to petitioners with regular family payment of pension. 3. It has been submitted that husband of petitioner no. 1 has superannuated from service from the cooperative department on 31.07.2002 whereas husband of petitioner no.2 has superannuated from service on 30.09.2013, but the aforesaid benefits have not yet been paid. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 13.08.2025, which are taken on record and as per which, regular family pensions are being paid to petitioners but the other benefits could not be paid to them on account of financial stringency being faced by the department. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is thus admitted that petitioner's husband was in substantive service with the cooperative department and superannuated on 31.07.2002 and 30.09.2013. The ground taken in the written instructions as financial stringency being faced by the department, cannot be a ground for denying the right of petitioners particularly with regard to regular family pension, which are not a bounty to be disbursed at the sweet will of employer. 6. In view thereof, the opposite parties collectively are directed to ensure payment of outstanding dues of petitioners expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority and to ensure continued payment of family pension. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 10, 2025 Shahnaz Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Manish Mathur,J.) Urmila And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench