HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15402 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and perused the records. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2026 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected, and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to pay the entire dues of family pension to the petitioner along with interest, and with a further prayer to direct the respondent concerned to disburse the death gratuity along with interest to the petitioner in the light of G.O. dated 16.09.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased, namely, Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi, who was staying at her parental home owing to some matrimonial dispute with her husband. After the death of the petitioner's husband, her claim for family pension has been rejected vide order dated 25.08.2026 on the ground that respondent No. 5, who is the mother of the deceased employee, had been nominated by the deceased employee Late Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi in his service records for payment of all retiral benefits. The said order is not in consonance with the relevant Family Pension Rules, i.e. the Civil Service Regulations and the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court under similar circumstances, where the wife was not staying with her husband and the mother-in-law was nominated. The petitioner therein, namely, Urmila Singh, approached this Court by means of filing Writ-A No. 5545 of 2021, which came to be decided on 24.07.2025, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Khare Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivendra Singh Bhadauria Arundhati Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) wherein this Court observed that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife, was entitled for family pension. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. Hence the same may be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. could not dispute the aforesaid fact. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 passed by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 3 to decide afresh, keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No. 5545 of 2021 (Urmila Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), after hearing all concerned, including respondent No. 5 - Smt. Sarojini Devi, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. September 23, 2026 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 15402 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad