HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 1961 of 2023 Court No. - 19 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kamal Kishor Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for the state respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent no.5, who claims to be the wife of late father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Kapil Dev Singh, who was appointed in Police Department on 09.12.1972 and superannuated on 31.07.2014 from the post of Constable (Driver) in Police Department. He died after retirement on 16.09.2018. After his death, the respondent no.5, Smt. Shushila Devi, who claims herself to be the wife of late Shri Kapil Dev Singh, moved application before the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar for relating to family pension in her favour. The said application was objected by the petitioner by filing a separate application, in which it was stated that said Smt. Shushila Devi was, in fact, had having some illicit connection with late father but she was not his legally wedded wife. He next submitted that Smt. Shushila Devi has filed a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rohit Kumar Tripathi, Rama Soni Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kamal Kishor Tiwari, Mohd. Nafeesh Quraishi Virendra Pratap Singh Alias Deepu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) succession Case No. 64/2019. "Shushila Devi versus Virendra Pratap Singh" in which she had claimed that the gratuity and pension of late Shri Kapil Dev Singh on the ground that she is his wife, and her signature finds place on pension papers of late Kapil Dev Singh as his wife. He next submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar, vide impugned order dated 18-11-2022, has dismissed the claim of the present petitioner for retiral and other dues of late Kapil Dev Singh, in absence of an appropriate succession certificate. He next submitted that a compromise has been effected between the contesting parties, i.e. the petitioner and respondent number 5, wherein Smt. Shushila Devi, the contesting respondent, as his wife, waived her claim regarding retiral and other dues of late Shri Kapil Dev Singh, and has admitted that the petitioner, being son of Late Kapil Dev Singh, is the claimant of all movable and immovable property as well as retiral dues of late Kapil Dev Singh. 3. A compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the contesting respondent, Shushila Devi where respondent no. 5, Shushila Devi, will receive the full pension amount and its arrears, and the petitioner is admitted to be entitled of receiving gratuity and other post retiral dues of late Shri Kapil Dev Singh. In said compromise, the petitioner has admitted that Smt. Shushila is the second wife of late Kapil Dev Singh. 4. Learned State Council submitted that the impugned order cannot be passed on strength of a compromise entered between the petitioner and the private respondents, inasmuch as a succession case has already been filed by respondent no.5, which is pending before the competent court, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with during pending of said succession case, which is also mentioned in the impugned order. 5. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner and the respondent 5 to approach the court concerned, where succession case filed by respondent no.5 is pending and file a compromise before that court and the court concerned will be at liberty to decide the same on the basis of a compromise, as expeditiously as possible, WRIA No. 1961 of 2023 2 preferable within 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. October 6, 2025 KR WRIA No. 1961 of 2023 3 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench