HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14896 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 to 3 while power on behalf of opposite party No.4 has been filed by Mr. Abhinav Nath Tripathi & Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocates which is taken on record. 2. Petition has been filed seeking mainly for the following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the missive/communique dated 10.06.2025 issued by the opposite party no. 3 by which the genuine claim of the petitioner has been negated on the basis of half-baked facts, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice." 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner, on the basis of instructions, submits that the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition. 4. Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akash Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 submits that answering opposite party No.4 is the widow of late Ram Shiromani Dwivedi and is the daughter-in-law of petitioner but is being harassed by her in-laws after demise of her husband. He has adverted to the directions issued by this Court in Writ-A No. 9209 of 2025 filed by the petitioner earlier which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nazmul Hasan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Malti Dwivedi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that nomination of opposite party No.4 in the service book of late Ram Shiromani Dwivedi and service benefits of her husband were challenged by her in-laws including petitioner due to which earlier as well Writ-A No. 9209 of 2025 was filed and was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2025. It is evident from the judgment and order that this Court has specifically recorded a finding that opposite party No.4 was indicated as a nominee not only in the service book but also in the Human Resources Portal and the said nomination was made by the deceased when he was alive. The order records a finding that there was no forgery or interpolation regarding nomination of opposite party No.4 as nominee. The order also indicates that although petitioner was mother of deceased but was not dependent upon the deceased since her husband and other son are already alive, with her husband in receipt of pension. 6. It thus appears that repeated objections are being raised and made by the petitioner to deny service benefits of husband of opposite party No.4 to her. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly findings recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, request for withdrawal of petition is rejected. 8. In view of discussion made above, petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with cost amounting to Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid by petitioner to the opposite party No.4 within a period of four weeks from today failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue for payment to opposite party No.4. December 19, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 14896 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench