Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:369 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9417 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kamar Jahan Alias Sayra Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Vikram Shahi,Anu Pratap Singh,Arvind Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anuj Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is legally wedded wife of one Waseem Ahmad who was working in the Irrigation Department at Sharda Dam on the post of Electrician as a class IV employee. Waseem Ahmad during his life time, in his service book has recorded name of "Sayra Bano" as his wife and nominee. The petitioner's name is "Kamar Jahan" who claims pension and other service dues of Waseem Ahmad stating that she is wife of Waseem Ahmad and is the same person i.e. Sayra Bano which was recorded in the service book of the deceased Government servant. 3. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner made a claim before the Punjab National Bank for being given money in the account of her husband and the Bank after taking affidavit, transferred funds in her name and it is on the basis of aforesaid facts, the petitioner had moved an application to respondent no. 4 - Executive Engineer Lucknow Division, Sharda Nahar, Lucknow for treating her to be wife of deceased Government servant - Waseem Ahmad and also to give her pension and other service dues to which her husband was entitled to. Respondent no. 4 by means of impugned order dated 21.09.2022, rejected the application, stating that family pension has been sanctioned in the name of Sayra Bano who is recorded as wife of deceased Government servant and the same pension cannot be given to the petitioner, who, according to the respondents is not Sayra Bano, but, Kamar Jahan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that even son of Waseem Ahmad has given an affidavit in her favour and the petitioner being illiterate woman does not have any educational qualification or any certificate issued from any educational institution showing her name to be Sayra Bano and hence she has approached this Court for setting aside order dated 21.09.2022 and directing respondent no. 4 to provide family pension to the petitioner after death of husband of petitioner namely Waseem Ahmad. 5. The dispute in the present case pertains to identity of the petitioner as to whether she is "Kamar Jahan" who is also known as "Sayra Bano" and as to whether the petitioner is the wife of late Government servant. 6. Even in the present writ petition death certificate issued by the Nagar Palika, Bakshi Ka Talab which has been prepared on 03.09.2021, which date is clearly after the death of the Government servant and no reason for the delay has been explained. Apart from above, copy of service book has been annexed which according to the petitioner is Photo Copy of the service book of deceased Government servant alongwith petitioner. The photo copy which has been annexed with the writ petition is in such a shape that identification is not possible. Other than aforesaid documents, copy of Ration Card has also been annexed, wherein date of preparation of said ration card is not discernible from the document. 7. It is noticed that in the present case question involved is disputed question of fact with regard to identity of the petitioner. There is no conclusive evidence indicating that petitioner is same person known as Sayra Bano whose name is recorded as wife of deceased Government servant. 8. Accordingly, in such circumstances, where highly disputed questions of fact are involved, it would be appropriate for the person to seek declaration from the Court of competent jurisdiction which after receiving evidence and on consideration of the same issue such declaration and same shall be paced before the authority concerned for taking appropriate decision. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appropriate remedy for deciding such disputed questions of fact. In the present case, identity of the petitioner is under serious dispute as per impugned order. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. The petitioner has sufficient remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction to seek declaration with regard to her identity. 10. The writ petition stands dismissed. 11. In case a suit is filed by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking declaration with regard to her identity, the Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order with regard to the documents annexed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench