Smt. Gurdeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19698-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 146 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Gurdeep Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Lakshmi Kant Tripathi,Shyam Mohan Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prafull Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Admittedly, respondent no.3 was not served with any notice at the time of dismissal of the writ petition. The writ petition instituted by the appellant had arisen out of an order passed on 28.02.2025 whereby her representation claiming the benefit of family pension was rejected by the competent authority. The order of rejection clearly mentioned that the deceased-employee had previously married to one Madhu Devi and during the subsistence of his first marriage, the appellant claims to have married the said employee who was a government servant. The second marriage not being permissible in law would not oust the right of family pension of the first wife as per rules. It is for this reason the right of family pension was denied to the appellant.

¶7

In the representation made by the appellant on 12.03.2024, the marriage of the deceased-employee with Smt Madhu Devi is not disputed, however, it is stated therein that Smt Madhu had left him after five years of her marriage and it is thereafter that the appellant entered into a marital relationship with Sri Shivnarayan Singh and out of the wedlock three children were born who have allegedly attained the age of majority and were not dependents at the time of death of the petitioner.

¶8

It is also stated in the representation that Smt Madhu went untraceable since long and has not

¶9

claimed any rights so far.

¶10

From the representation made by the appellantpetitioner on 12.03.2024, it is crystal clear that she had married to Sri Shivnarayan during subsistence of his first marriage. Insofar as untraceability of the first wife is concerned, no proceedings whatsoever have been instituted for declaration of her civil death nor there is mention of any proceedings seeking dissolution of the marriage by the husband during his life time on the ground of her untraceability.

¶11

In these circumstances, the writ court having regard to all the relevant aspects of the matter has found that the claim of family pension laid by the appellant was not maintainable within the scope of rules, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶12

The reasoning assigned by the writ court in our humble consideration, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity calling for an interference in exercise of appellate powers of this Court.

¶13

While affirming the order passed by the writ court we, however, would permit the appellantpetitioner to take up appropriate proceedings for declaration of civil death of the first wife of the deceased-employee on the strength of the assertions set out in the representation.

¶14

Subject to the liberty as above, we hereby affirm the order passed by the writ court and the special appeal is dismissed .

¶15

It is further provided that in case any suit proceedings are initiated claiming the declaration as above, the same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months.

¶16

( Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. ) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025/Shahnaz

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Gurdeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gurdeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aryan Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

M/S Sadana Electrical Store Lko. Thru. Its Partner Sri Rajesh Sadana Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Rai Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi and 2 Others

Dr. Neeraj Gupta Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Farmer Welfare New Delhi and 5 Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 3 Others

Lalmani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others