HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15628 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This Court entertained the present petition on 17.10.2025. 3. Today, instructions have been produced by Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel of the Tehsildar Rasra, District Ballia dated 29.10.2025, which are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'. According to him, they are self-sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition and he does not propose to file any affidavit and submits that the writ petition may be decided at this stage. 4. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 5. The case of the writ petitioner is that she was married to Mr. Bagish and after five years of the marriage, the husband of the writ petitioner died on 02.07.1985 and thereafter, the petitioner is living in her parental house and now she is aged about 70 years. 6. The case of the writ petitioner is that father of the writ petitioner being Paras Nath Shukla, who was working as Revenue Inspector retired on 31.12.1993 and he died on 26.08.1995, who had five children including the writ petitioner. Submission is that the writ petitioner had applied for family pension, which has been negated on 22.09.2025 by Tehsildar Rasra, District Ballia. 7. Questioning the same, present writ petition has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nikhil Pandey, Tej Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Asha Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 22.09.2025 cannot be sustained for the single moment that the same is non- speaking, unreasoned and cryptic. He further submits that in view of the Government Order dated 01.07.2014, the writ petitioner is entitled to family pension. 9. Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to family pension for the simple reason that she owns landed property and revenue is also generated from the same. However, he submits that the said aspect has not been incorporated in the order in question. According to him, the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order. 10. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 11. The order dated 22.09.2025 impugned in the present petition is as under:- "श्रीमती आशा देवी पुत्री स्व० पारसनाथ शुक्ला ग्राम व पोस्ट लहसनी तहसील बेल्थरारोड़ जनपद बिलया। कृ पया उपरोक्त िबषयक अपने प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांक रिहत प्राप्त िदनांक 04.09.2025 का सन्दभर् ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें, िजसके द्वारा पािरवािरक पेंशन और िचिकत्सा मे हुए खचर् / व्यय को िदलाने जाने का अनुरोध िकया गया है। पािरवािरक पेशन के सम्बन्ध मे अंअवगत कराना है िक तत्कालीन उपिजलािधकारी महोदय रसड़ा के आदेश िदनांक 06.03.2020 द्वारा उिल्लिखत है िक " शासनादेशानुसार पेंशन 25 बषर् तक की िवधवा पुत्री को मान्य। आवेिदका की उम्र पिरवार रिजस्टर अनुसार 70 बषर् है। िनरस्त।" अतएव उपरोक्तानुसार सूचनाथर् प्रेिषत है। तहसीलदार रसड़ा। संख्या व िदनांक उपरोक्त। प्रितिलिप - उपिजलािधकारी महोदय को अवलोकनाथर् प्रेिषत।" 12. A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the same is non- speaking and cryptic, though it relies and refers to the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rasra dated 06.03.2020 and also refers to the Government Order, but there is no reference or recital or details of the Government order, which dis-entitles the writ petitioner in this regard. Further the submissions so raised by learned counsel for the writ petitioner are that the writ petitioner has a landed property and thus she cannot be granted family pension, has not been even recited in the order in question. WRIA No. 15628 of 2025 2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, in para-8 has clearly mandated that the order is to be tested on the reasons assigned in the same and the same cannot be safeguarded or supplemented by any supplementary affidavit. Since the order suffers from infirmity, which goes to the root of the matter, the same cannot be sustained. Relevant extract of the decision passed in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) is quoted hereinunder:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. ..." 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:- (a) The order impugned dated 22.09.2025 passed by Tehsildar Rasra, District Ballia is quashed. (b) The matter is remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order. 14. For facilitation, the writ petitioner shall prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.5 by 07.11.2025, who shall on the said motion proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. October 30, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15628 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad