Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113077 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9550 of 2025 Petitioner :- Avinesh Bharti Respondent :- Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban) And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Subodh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harvardhan Gupta on behalf of respondents. 2. Petitioner's father got retired from U.P. Jal Nigam 31.8.2011 and died on 9.1.2021 that is after 10 years. 3. During the aforesaid period, father of the petitioner has approached concerned respondents to release pension and other retiral benefits, however, it was not settled during his lifetime and some of the benefits were given after his death to the petitioner and now the petitioner has come up with a prayer that his father ought to have been granted benefit of first A.C.P, and accordingly redetermine the pension and other benefits and arrears of the same be paid to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring documents annexed along with this writ petition submits that claim of the petitioner's father is still pending before concerned respondents and in principle it has been accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents have already taken cognizance of the representation filed by petitioner and it will be decided in accordance with law including the issue as to whether petitioner is entitled for such claim or not. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 7. Substantial benefits has already been given to the father of the petitioner and some of the arrears has also been given to the petitioner. 8. Relief sought in this writ petition is in respect of benefits of first A.C.P. 9. It is not on record that as and when deceased employee has raised such issue and under which law, petitioner being son of his deceased father who has died about a decade ago is entitled for such benefit, therefore, a claim which ought to have raised by deceased father of petitioner either during his service or after retirement, cannot be agitated by his son, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted to the petitioner. 10. Petitioner ought to have been satisfied with arrears he has already received and there is no claim in this writ petition that petitioner was dependent on his father. 11. In the affidavit accompanied in this writ petition, petitioner has declared his age about 42 years and doing a private job, therefore, also relief sought cannot be granted. 12. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad