HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 666 of 2006 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. This appeal is being adjourned repeatedly as is born out from the order sheet. 2. Today, Shri Jyotinjay Verma, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, has sent illness slip, however, we find that name of two other counsel are also mentioned. The last vakalatnama filed is by Smt. Nalini Jain, but, she is not present. We can not keep on adjourning an appeal filed in 2006 which is pending for the last 19 years. 3. None appears for the contesting respondent. 4. Heard Shri Praful Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 5. By means of this special appeal the judgment and order dated 16.01.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 7316 (S/S) of 2005 has been challenged. A challenge has also been raised to another order dated 17.08.2006 passed in a review application bearing No. 194 of 2006 filed for reviewing of the aforesaid judgment which was dismissed. The writ petition of the respondent- petitioner was disposed of on 16.01.2006 by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the opposite party no. 4 therein, who is appellant herein, to make payment of family pension to the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Smt. Nalini Jain, J.B.S.Rathore, Jyotinjay Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : H.G.S. Parihar, Anurag Singh, Meenakshi Singh, Mratunjay Singh, Rajesh Kr.Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sultanpur .....Appellant(s) Smt. Nirmala Singh .....Respondent(s) petitioner regularly on every months and will also pay the arrears of pension from 15.10.1998 till date. 6. The facts of the case in brief are that the husband of the respondent- petitioner was appointed as an untrained Teacher on consolidated pay vide order dated 29.12.1995. He died on 14.10.1998 after rendering only about three years service that too as an untrained Teacher on consolidated pay. The learned Single Judge has virtually allowed the writ petition without reference to any Rule or Government Order which may be applicable for payment of family pension. In fact, no response was filed by the appellant herein. Accordingly, treating the averments made in the writ petition to be correct the writ petition has been allowed without considering relevant issues as to whether the respondent-petitioner was at all entitled to family pension, if so, under which provision of law. 7. The appellant has relied upon Government Order dated 24.03.2003, according to which, if an untrained Teacher dies in service, then, his legal representatives shall not be entitled to family pension, however, the contention of the respondent-petitioner in the counter affidavit is that the death occurred in 1998, therefore, this Government Order dated 24.03.2003 will not apply instead certain other Government Orders as have been referred in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- petitioner, one of which is dated 18.04.2001, would apply. 8. We have gone through the records of the original writ petition and find that an interim order was passed for deciding representation of the respondent-petitioner. It is not very clear as to whether such representation was decided or not. As, learned Single Judge has not considered the merits of the issue nor decided it with reference to any rule or Government Order as to the entitlement of the respondent-petitioner, therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2006 as also the order passed on the review application dated 17.08.2006 are liable to be set-aside with liberty to the respondent- petitioner to move an application before the Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow claiming family pension with reference to relevant provisions of law including Government Orders, if any, applicable on the subject whereupon the said Director of Basic Education or whosoever is SPLA No. 666 of 2006 2 competent in the Basic Education Department shall consider the representation and verify the facts in the light of the relevant Rules which may be applicable for payment of family pension to untrained Teachers of the Basic Education Department and then passed a reasoned order in this regard with reference to relevant provisions of law. While doing so the plea taken by the respondent-petitioner in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit etc. shall also be taken into consideration. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Let the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of three months. 10. Consequences will follow accordingly as per law. 11. In the event, the respondent-petitioner is found eligible for payment of family pension the same shall be disbursed to her within the next month, however, if she is not found entitle to the same, then, the matter shall rest as it is with a further right to challenge to the respondent-petitioner, if aggrieved. 12. The Special Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. November 20, 2025 R.K.P. SPLA No. 666 of 2006 3 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench