Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140031-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35642 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sushila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Singh,Alok Mishra,Binod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner by means of the present petition has assailed the order dated 03.10.2022 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of honour money in lieu of death of her husband, Hari Bilas Singh, u/s 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honour Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Honour Act, 2016') has been rejected upon noticing the discrepancy in the father's name of Hari Bilas Singh, the husband of the petitioner, mentioned in the honour money related papers with the name of his father mentioned in the parivar register setup by the petitioner wherein the petitioner is reflected as wife of Hari Bilas Singh. The discrepancy in the name of the father of Hari Bilas Singh is that in the parivar register, the name of his father is mentioned as Ram Nakshatra whereas in the honour money related papers, the name of Hari Bilas Singh's father is mentioned as Ramanand Singh. 3. While inviting the counter affidavit vide order dated 30.11.2022, this court directed the respondents to disclose whether there is any procedure or guidelines prescribed/issued to determine the disputes of discrepancy in the record. This court further directed the respondents to state in the counter affidavit that if there is any procedure/guidelines whether it has been duly followed or not. In the counter affidavit, the respondents, in paragraph no.4, has stated that there is no procedure or guidelines available to conduct the enquiry in respect of such discrepancy but so far as the discrepancy in the documents are concerned, that can be rectified by conducting a summary inquiry through any competent officer in view of the advice given by the DGC (Civil), Mau dated 13.01.2022. The relevant extract of the paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced hereinbelow: "So far as the query of this Hon'ble Court is concerned, it is submitted that there is no procedure or guidelines available to conduct any enquiry in respect of such act, appears to be, committed by the petitioner herself, but so far as the discrepancies in the documents are concerned, that can be rectified by conducting a summary inquiry through any competent officer in view of the advice given by the DGC (Civil) Mau dated 13.01.2022." 4. The record further reveals that respondents got an enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, Sadar Mau and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Mau submitted a reply in response to the letter of Officer-in-charge, Freedom Fighter, Mau vide letter dated 29.09.2021 wherein he enclosed the report of Tehsildar who conducted the enquiry and found that the name of the father of the husband of petitioner was Ram Nakshatra Singh but the people in the village used to call him Ramanand Singh and that is why the name of the father of husband was recorded in the records of jail as Ramanand Singh. The report further states that the name of the father of petitioner of Hari Bilas Singh was Ram Nakshatra Singh urf Ramanand Singh. Since, the respondents themselves have stated in the counter affidavit that such discrepancy in the documents can be removed by conducting an enquiry by a competent authority and in the instant case, the enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar, who found that Ram Nakshatra Singh and Ramanand Singh are same person. The said report of Tehsildar enclosed with the letter of SDM, Sadar dated 29.09.2021 is enclosed as annexure no.7 to the writ petition and the said report has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Since, the report submitted by the Tehsildar itself states that Ramanand Singh and Ram Nakshatra Singh are same person and, therefore, the denial of honour money to the petitioner due to the discrepancy in the name of father of late Hari Bilas Singh in the parivar register and in the jail record/identity card of late Hari Bilas Singh is not material considering the enquiry report of Tehsildar which states that Ramanand Singh and Ram Nakshatra Singh are the same person. 5. In such view of the fact, impugned order is set aside and the respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Mau, is directed to grant honour money to the petitioner if she is otherwise eligible under the Honour Act, 2016. 6. The respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Mau, shall consider the entitlement of petitioner for receiving honour money u/s 6(1) of the Honour Act, 2016, within a period of one month, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 S.Chaurasia (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad