HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13087 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr.Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2025 whereby deduction of Rs.8,69,989/- has been sought to be made from the family pension benefits of petitioner at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month. Further prayer has been made for payment of family pension due to petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel has been provided written instructions dated 20.11.2025, which is taken on record and as per which, petitioner's husband late Dinesh Chandra Rajput superannuated from service on 29.02.2012 and who has passed away on 27.05.2014 whereafter although family pension was required to be paid to petitioner but inadvertently the entire pension and cumulative rate was being paid to petitioner. It is submitted that by means of impugned order, error has been sought to be corrected. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi, Indra Jeet Yadav, Vishwanath Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Abha Rajput .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner had given an undertaking on 22.09.2015 and 08.09.2024 in pursuance of which the recovery is being made. 5. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's late husband was a Class III employee with the department and petitioner has been granted this benefit for the past ten years. He is therefore submits that petitioner's case is covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Otherss V. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 6. It is also submitted on the basis of instructions that opposite parties would definitely be at liberty to correct the future pensionary benefits of petitioner but recovery cannot be initiated against the petitioner since it is opposed to public policy. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has denied to the aspect of any written consent being given by petitioner for effecting recovery against her. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident and admitted that consequent upon demise of petitioner's husband, although petitioner was entitled only to family pension but inadvertently was in receipt of full pension. 9. The aforesaid aspect has already been dealt with by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih(supra). WRIA No. 13087 of 2025 2 10. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that although petitioner would be entitled only to family pension henceforth, but no recovery shall be made against her from the retiral benefits. 11. The aspect of consent provided by petitioner is subject to factual dispute since learned counsel for petitioner has denied any such consent being given by petitioner. Even otherwise this Court is of the considered opinion that such consent provided subsequently would be against public policy. 12. With the aforesaid directions, petition is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 13087 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench