Kamar Jahan @ Sayra Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kamar Jahan @ Sayra Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; respondents' order dated 21.09.2022 and the learned Single Judge's order quashed and set aside. Family pension directed to be paid from August 2021 (soon after the husband's death); respondents to issue the PPO in the appellant's name and pay arrears and month-to-month pension within six weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who claimed family pension as widow of deceased pensioner Waseem Ahmad in the name 'Kamar Jahan' while the deceased's service book recorded the wife's name as 'Sayra Bano', is entitled to family pension notwithstanding the variance in names. +1 more

Court's answer

From the material now on record, it stands established that the appellant is the wife of the deceased Waseem Ahmad and is also known by the name 'Kamar Jahan'; accordingly, the respondents' denial of family pension to her cannot be sustained.

Ratio / Principle

The nomination form available with the bank, as filled up by the deceased, indicates the name 'Sayra Bano alias Kamar Jahan' at two places with the relationship shown as wife; the pictures on the pension payment order, service book, Aadhar Card and affidavit appear similar, corroborating the appellant's identity as the deceased's wife.

Key takeaways

The appeal is allowed; the order dated 21.09.2022 impugned in the writ petition as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside.ratio¶15
The respondents are directed to pay family pension to the appellant from the date she became entitled, i.e., soon after her husband's death from August 2021, to issue the PPO in her name, and to pay the arrears and thereafter month-to-month pension within six weeks of the order.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Special Appeal allowed. Denial of family pension to the widow of a deceased pensioner solely because her claim was made as 'Kamar Jahan' while the deceased's service book recorded the wife's name as 'Sayra Bano' was held unsustainable. The nomination form filled up by the deceased with the bank recorded the nominee as 'Sayra Bano alias Kamar Jahan' with the relationship stated as wife, and the photographs on the service book, the pension payment order and the Aadhar Card appeared similar, establishing that the petitioner was the wife of deceased Waseem Ahmad and was also known as Kamar Jahan. The respondents' order dated 21.09.2022 denying family pension and the learned Single Judge's order dated 02.01.2025 (dismissing the writ petition on the footing of highly disputed questions of fact and relegating the petitioner to a civil-court declaration) were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to pay family pension from August 2021, issue the PPO in the appellant's name, and pay arrears and month-to-month pension within six weeks.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23033-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 40 of 2025

Appellant :- Kamar Jahan @ Sayra Bano Respondent :- State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Anu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anil Kumar Singh Visen (S.C.)

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, aggrieved of the order dated 21.09.2022, passed by the respondents denying family pension to the petitioner, has been rejected.

The petitioner, claiming herself to be widow of deceased - Waseem Ahmad, who was a pensioner, sought family pension. The claim was made by the petitioner in the name of 'Kamar Jahan'. As the service book of the deceased indicated the name of the wife as 'Sayra Bano', the respondents declined to make payment of the family pension to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed.

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that highly disputed questions of fact were involved and therefore, the petitioner should seek declaration from the competent civil court pertaining to her name and status and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition as it was consistently the case of the petitioner that she

was wife of deceased - Waseem Ahmad and that an affidavit in this regard was given by her son also. Further submissions were made that the picture of the petitioner finds pasted on the service book of the petitioner and the pension payment order, which has not been disputed and therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained.

When the matter came up before this Court, it was claimed on 20.03.2025 that in the nomination registered with the Punjab National Bank, name of the petitioner as nominee has been indicated as Sayra Bano alias Kamar Jahan. As there was otherwise no material available to indicate that the name of the petitioner is also Kamar Jahan/name of wife of the deceased was also Kamar Jahan, the petitioner was permitted to produce the material.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed alongwith a copy of the nomination form which was supplied by the Bank after the direction of the Court. The nomination form available with the bank as filled up by the deceased, indicates the name Sayra Bano alias Kamar Jahan at two places and the relationship indicated is wife. The picture, which appears on the pension payment order and the service book and that on the Aadhar Card as well as the affidavit, appears to be similar.

In the over all fact situation of the case, wherein from the material, which is now available on record, establishes that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased - Waseem Ahmad and is also known by the name - Kamar Jahan and therefore, the denial of family pension to the petitioner by the respondents, cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.09.2022 impugned in the writ petition as well as the order of learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to make payment of the family pension from the date the petitioner became entitled, i.e., soon after the death of her husband from the month of August, 2021, the respondents are directed to issue PPO in her name and make payment of the arrears and thereafter, month to month pension within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Mukesh Pal/Harshita

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench