Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55729-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4718 of 2025 Petitioner :- Union of India and 4 others Respondent :- Smt Shakuntala And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Mishra Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application (OA) No. 308 of 2023 whereby the OA filed by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the husband of the respondent due treating as regular appointee in Group D employee with all consequential benefits and to release family pension in favour of Respondent No. 1. 2. A perusal of record indicates that the Tribunal by relying on judgement in OA No. 917 of 2004 (Chandi Lal Vs. Union of India and others), decided on 02.09.2015, has allowed the original application. The writ petition filed against the order in the case of Chandi Lal (supra) was dismissed by this Court on 02.03.2007 and special leave petition arising from the division Bench judgement has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. Further following the judgement in the case of Chandi Lal (supra), another division Bench in Union of India and two others Vs. Heera Lal and another in Writ A No. 10505 of 2023 decided on 01.12.2023 came to the following conclusion: "35. Thus, we are not inclined to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the principle of consistency that must be maintained in the interest of predictability and faith in justice dispensation system. Adopting the view taken by this Court in Chandi Lal (supra) we refuse to exercise discretion for reason of length of engagement of the private respondent. That view is also seen to have been consistently applied in the State of Uttar Pradesh over a long period of 16 years. We consider that period of time and the finality attained by all decisions of this Court following Chandi Lal (supra), to be decisive. We cannot look to differentiate or test the empirical correctness of the decision in Chandi Lal (supra) or Shyam Lal Shukla (supra) or Krishan Pal Singh (supra). To do that would be to bring uncertainty and in judicial decision making and to unsettle the adjudication already made, which has also attained finality in the case of exactly similarly situated persons. 36. In exercise of powers of judicial review, this Court does not have any positive powers like those vested in the Supreme Court - to pass any order to do complete justice. However, it is a well settled principle - jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is both extraordinary and discretionary besides being equitable. It may not be readily invoked by a litigant, and it may not be mechanically exercised by the Court, at every illegality shown to exist. To that extent, it may be a part reflection of the spirit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, commending to this Court to go slow where its intervention may cause more injustice than curing it. 37. We are also mindful of the fact that no such exercise is required to be made in the present facts as the respondent and others are individual citizens, pitted against the almighty State that too none other than the Union of India. A citizen who has given all his productive life to Union of India, may not be out witted on legal niceties and procedural technicalities at the behest of the Union of India. The respondent has no option available to survive in life or to do any thing other than what he did for more than 30 years i.e. to serve the Union of India. His productive years are lost. Accordingly, interference is declined. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 38. Let all pensionary dues be computed and paid out to the respondent within next three months, in any case not later than 31.03.2024, failing which the same may attract interest @ 6 % per annum." 5. In view of above fact situation wherein the issue sought to be raised in the present petition is squarely covered by judgements in the case of Chandi Lal (supra) and Heera Lal (supra), there is no substance in the petition , the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025/Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra,J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad