Dismissed

Bitto Devi Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt of Basic Education Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2025WRIA/294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of rejection of her family pension claim due to absence of nominee mention and lack of succession certificate. Court dismissed petition finding no illegality, allowing successor certificate filing as a future possibility.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; future consideration of claim allowed upon submission of succession certificate.

Bitto Devi Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15681

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 294 of 2022 Petitioner :- Bitto Devi Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt Of Basic Education Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶6

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"i) Issue writ order or direction in nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order 3.08.2021 passed by opposite party No.2, contained as Annexure No.1, in the interest of justice.

¶8

ii) Issue writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to concerned opposite parties that they consider the case of petitioner and grant and pay the family pension, including arrears within reasonable time as early as possible, in the interest of justice."

¶9

Earlier the petitioner has filed a petition bearing No.1449/2021 (S/S) (Bitto Devi Mishra vs. Sate of U.P. and others) in which a direction was issued by this Court to opposite party No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner and in pursuant to that direction, the representation of the petitioner has been decided vide impugned order dated 03.08.2021 by a reasoned and speaking order whereby her claim has been found to be unfounded and accordingly, the representation has been rejected.

¶10

Upon a query being made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he could not assign any reason except the old age of the petitioner as to why he cannot provide succession certificate

¶11

as required by the authority vide impugned order.

¶12

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the claim of the petitioner who is asserting to be the wife of Late Girdhari Lal Mishra has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, in the service book of Late Girdhari Lal Mishra, the name of the petitioner Bitto Devi is not mentioned as nominee and secondly, the petitioner has failed to produce any succession certificate to show that she is the wife of Late Girdhari Lal Mishra. Rule 7(iii) (e) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, specifically Clause B of sub-rule (e), states that no pension shall be payable to a person who is not a member of the deceased officer's family. The relevant part of the impugned order is extracted below;-

¶13

" ययचचदयरयपसत पतययववदनएववकयययरलयममउपलबधअभभलवखखकव परचकणसवपकरणभवषयकभनमनवततसससभतसपषहहतचहह -

¶14

सव०भगरधयरचलयलस व यभनववतअनतचरसयकरतयवहकसलपकभशकयउद र एवव पयचयभयषययमभनदवशयलयउ०प०लखनऊजहभकभदनयवक 28.02.2019 कह शयसककयस व यसवस व यभनववतहहयवसव।सव०भगरधयरचलयलदयरयस व य पतससतकयममअवभकतपररवयरकवभववरणममशचमतचभबषटहद व चकयनयगपतनचकव रपममअवभकतनहहभकययगययहह।भकसचकमरचयरचदयरयस व यपतससतकयमम अवभकतपररवयरकवसदसयखकयभववरणहचस व यसवबवधचममलखममशयसककय अभभलवखखकवरपमममयनयभकययजयसकतयहह।इसकवअभतररकययचचदयरय पतययववदनकवसयसभकसचसकमपयधधकयरचसवभनगरतउतरयधधकयरपमयण - पत भचसलगनहहभकययगययहह . धजसममउनकयनयमसव०भगरधयरचलयलकक पतनचकवरपममदजरहहधजसकवआधयरपरउनहमसव०भगरधयरचलयलकक पतनचमयनयकरतवहहएपयररवयररकपमशनकवपकरणकयभनसतयरणभकययजय सकव।

¶15

उपरहकवभणरततथयखसवसपषहहभकययचचशचमतचभबटहद व चकयनयम -

¶16

(1) सव०भगरधयरचलयलदयरयकयनयमपतनचकवरपममस व यपतससतकयमम अवभकतपररवयरकवभववरणममशचमतचभबटहद व चअवभकतनहहहह।

¶17

(2) ययचचदयरयभकसचसकमपयधधकयरचसवभनगरतउतरयधधकयरपमयण - पतभच सलगनहहभकययगययहह . धजसममउनकयनयमसव०भगरधयरचलयलककपतनच

¶18

कवरपममदजरहह।

¶19

ययचचककपयररवयररकपमशनकवभनसतयरणहवततउपयतरकवभणरतअभभलवखखममसव भकसचएकअभभलवखकयहहनयआवशयकहहजहनहहहह।ऐसचसससभतममययचच शचमतचभबटहद व चककपयररवयररकपमशनककमयमगआधयरहचनहह।धजसव सवचकयरभकययजयनयभनयमयनतसयरसमभवनहहहह।

¶20

एतदयरयररटययभचकयसव 0-1499/2021 ( एसएस ) भबटहद व चभमशयबनयम रयजयसरकयरवअनयमममय०नययययलयदयरयपयररतआदवशभदनयवक 04.02 2021 कवअनतपयलनममययचचकयपतययववदनउपरहकयनतसयरभनसतयररतभकयय जयतयहह। "

¶21

Clearly it is not disputed between the parties that the name of the petitioner does not find place at the service book of the deceased Girdhari Lal Mishra. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that he could not produce any succession certificate showing that she was wife of Late Girdhari Lal Mishra thus, I find no illegality in the order impugned and therefore, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed .

¶22

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in the interest of justice, he may be permitted to file succession certificate at the appropriate stage before the competent authority and in case he files the succession certificate showing herself the wife of Late Girdhari Lal Mishra before the competent authority her claim may be considered by the authority as per law.

¶23

In view of aforesaid request, it is provided that in case the succession certificate is provided by the petitioner showing herself to be the wife of Late Girdhari Lal Mishra and the same is placed before the competent authority along with appropriate representation for claiming family pension, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bitto Devi Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt of Basic Education Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bitto Devi Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt of Basic Education Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azim Ahamad Khan Vs Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room 21, Sultanpur and Another

M/S Shiv Kripa Medical and Surgicals Thru. the Sale Propritar Smt. Manju Shuklaand Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to the Govt. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Jai Bind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Haribansh Singh Alias Bhoore Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Brij Lal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Animal Husbandry andORS.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others