Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64717 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5470 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rahul Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Shukla,Devansh Misra,Shubhendu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anup Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 02.03.2022 and 03.03.2023 passed by respondent authority, namely, Commissioner, Department of Sales Tax, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Additional Commissioner (Accounts), Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entitlement of the petitioner's mother for extra- ordinary pension was very much there and admitted to the respondents and yet the calculations were wrongly done and accordingly she was not benefited with the correct pension for wrong fixation. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled not only for correct fixation of pension but also arrears on account of that. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary raises preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this petition questioning the order dated 02.03.2022 and 03.03.2022 by the petitioner who is neither entitled to family pension, nor otherwise entitled to agitate for any correction of fixation except claim of arrears which might have remained unpaid to the mother of the petitioner. It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that mother of the petitioner would have been the aggrieved party to question the order dated 02.03.2022 and 03.03.2022 but she chose on her own not to question these orders during her life time as she died as late as on 05.01.2023. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner will not have any entitlement to seek correction questioning the orders impugned here in this petition. 5. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether petitioner is entitled to family pension or extraordinary pension under the rules, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that petitioner is entitled to arrears as a property being successor to her late mother and not entitled to family pension or extraordinary pension under the Rules. 6. In view of the above, since the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary pension or family pension, in my considered view he cannot raise question as to the fixation of pension. This plea was available to the mother who was entitled to receive pension in law but since the mother did not volunteer to question these orders, I do not see any justification to allow the successor to question these orders. Successor would be entitled to only pension as a property inherited from the mother. 7. In view of the above therefore, I do not see the authorities to be under any obligation to carry out any correction at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner's mother having chosen not to challenge the order, petitioner himself is not entitled to question the orders. 8. Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad