HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10953 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No. 5 stands dispensed with. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to include name of petitioner as a legally wedded wife of opposite party No.5 in the service record and any other relevant documents maintained by the police department. 3. Learned State Counsel at the very outset submits that since the employee who has been arrayed as opposite party No.5 is alive as on date and has specifically written to the authorities that he did not wish to include petitioner in his service book in any capacity whatsoever, petitioner would not have any vested right for such inclusion in the service book. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal thereof has placed reliance on Rule 2(C)(i) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 to submit that in the definition of "members of family", in relation to a government servant, a wife or husband whether residing with the government servant or not, would be included except in the case of spouse who is separated from the government servant by decree or order of a competent court. It is therefore submitted that since there is no decree or order of competent Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivam Kumar Mishra, Kirti Mishra, Laxman Singh, Manish Barnwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Meena Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) court in the present case, petitioner has a right to be considered as a member of family of opposite party No.5. He has also adverted to the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, to the same effect. He has also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Co-Ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Kiran Sonkar versus State of U.P. and others, writ A No. 576 of 2023 to buttress his submissions. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that husband of petitioner, who has been arrayed as opposite party No.5 is still alive and there seems to be matrimonial discord between the parties and matrimonial proceedings between the two also appear to be pending in the Family Court, Lucknow. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts that the opposite party No.5 apparently has given in writing to the authorities that he does not wish petitioner's name to be included in his service books, as is evident from the letter dated 22nd August, 2025, issued by the authority concerned, (annexure No. 4 to the rate petition). 6. No doubt, the rules which have been adverted to learned counsel for the petitioner bring within the scope of "members of family", a spouse who may also be separated but not those spouses who are separated by decree of any competent court. In the present case although petitioner has not been separated from her spouse by any decree or order of any competent court and since the definition of "members of family" may include a separated wife but there does not appear to be any substantive statutory right cast upon the spouse of a living government servant to be included in the service books, either as a nominee or in any other capacity whatsoever. 7. In the case of Smt. Kiran Sonkar (supra), the court considered an aspect of including a spouse of deceased government servant as a member of the family for inclusion in his service book. Evidently the said case is on a different aspect altogether and would not applicable in the present facts and circumstances, where the spouse is alive and has specifically shown his disinclination for inclusion of petitioner as spouse or nominee in the service books. WRIA No. 10953 of 2025 2 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, inclusion of a spouse within definition of members of family or even as a nominee in the service book of the government servant is for the purposes of grant of death-cum-retiral benefits subsequent to death of the government servant. In cases as the present one, where the government servant is alive, it would be his option to include any member of his family as a nominee for purposes of such benefit only after his demise and in such circumstances it is his will which is required to prevail. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances since there is no right vested in the petitioner for inclusion of name in the service books of opposite party No.5, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence. 10. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 19, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 10953 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench