A widow already receiving family pension for her late husband sought family pension also for her deceased son, appointed on compassionate grounds. Court found Government Order rules exclude mothers not dependent on the son and dismissed petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22156
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4178 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abha Pande Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supply Lko And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Sapna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
The petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.11.2023 and 19.03.2024 passed by respondent no.4 and 3 respectively by which claim petitioner 45 for family pension dependent on of deceased government employee namely Anurag Pandey has been rejected.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of respondents pension In commanding mandamus to sanction favor the to family of petitioner as dependent on deceased government employee namely Anurag Pandey.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's late husband, Harish Chandra Pandey, passed away on 14.03.2004. Subsequently, she was granted a family pension vide order dated 31.07.2006 and is currently receiving the same.
It is further submitted that the petitioner's son, who was appointed on compassionate grounds, also passed away on 21.07.2011. The deceased son is survived by the petitioner and his sister, Sonal Pandey. The petitioner now claims entitlement to receive family pension on account of her son’s death as well, relying on the Government Order dated 08.12.2008, despite already receiving a family pension for her late husband.
Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the contention arguing
that the petitioner is not dependent on anyone. It is an admitted fact that she has been receiving family pension since 2006 following the demise of her husband. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive two family pensions—one for her husband and another for her son. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
Perused the record. The operative part of the order is extracted below:-
" शशहरशशचनदपपणडडय , ववपणनवनरशककककजनपदरपयबरडलशममकपय र तरहतडहहयड वदनपनक 14.03.2004 ककममतययहकगयश।उककडपशचपततअपरवनदडशक , ककषपगपरएवन पमशन , लखनऊ मणडल दपरप अपनड पतपनक -2624 / सन०वन० कक० / पमशन /002/038/007295. वदनपनक 31.07.2006 दपरपशशमतशआभपपपणडडयपतनश ( सव० हरशशचनदपपणडडय ) कडपकममउनककममतययअथवपपयनववरवपहकडवदनपनकतक , जकभशपहलड हक , पपररवपररकपमशनकपभयगतपनवकयडजपनडहडतयभयगतपनआदडशवनगरतवकयपगयप।
इसकपयपरलयकड आदडश सनखयप -998/ ई -6/ पश०एफ० / हररशचनदपपणडड , वदनपनक 05.06.2004 दपरपशशअनयरपगपपणडडयपयतसव०शशहरशशचनदपपणडडयककउतरपदडश सडवपकपलममममतसरकपरशसडवकककडआशशतकककभतरवनयमपवलश , 1974 कडपपववधपनक कडअनतगरतकवनषशलवपककडपदपरवनययवकपदपनककगई।शशअनयरपगपपणडडय , कवनष शलवपककककपयपरलयशजलपखपदववपणनअशधकपरश , हरदकईममकपय र तरहतडहहयडउनकक वदनपनक 21.04.2011 ककममतययहकगई।ततपशचपततअपरवनदडशक , ककषपगपरएवपमशन , लखनऊमणडलदपरपअपनडपतपनक -10/ पम०वन० /M.1.-002/038/029456/CR-1483, वदनपनक 30.03.2015 दपरपशशमतशआभपपपणडडयमपतप ( सव०अनयरपगपपणडडय ) कडपकमम ममतययउपपदपनकपभयगतपनवकयडजपनडहडतयभयगतपनआदडशवनगरतवकयपगयपहह।अपर वनदडशक , ककषपगपरएवनपमशन , लखनऊमणडलदपरपशशमतशआभपपपणडडयमपतपसव० अनयरपगपपणडडयकडपकममपपररवपररकपमशनअनयमनयवकयडजपनडकपभयगतपनआदडशवनगरत नहहवकयपगयप।
शजलपशधकपरश , लखनऊकडपतसनखयप -249/ रप०स० -2/2012, वदनपनक 07.04.2012 दपरपसव०शशअनयरपगपपणडडयकडउतरपशधकपररयककपवववरणउपलबधकरपयपगयपहह , शजसममशशमतशआभपपपणडडय ( मपतप ) एवनकयमपरशसकनलपपणडडय ( बहनडअवववपवहत ) कप नपमअनवकतहह।
शपसनपदडशसनखयपसप -3-1508/ दस -2008-308-97, वदनपनक 08.12.2008 कडपसतर -7 (3) एवन शपसनपदडश सनखयप -38/2016- सप -3-921/ दस -2016/308/2018, वदनपनक 23.12.2016 कडपसतर -7 (4) ममपपररवपररकपमशनहडतयपररवपरकपवगरकरणवकयपगयप हह।शपसनपदडशवदनपनक 08.12.2008 कडपसपर -7(3) कडवगर - (11) ( घ ) एवनशपसनपदडश वदनपनक 23.12.2016 ककपसतर -7 (4) कडवगर -2 ( छ ) ममपपववधपवनतहहवकऐसडमपतप -
वपतपजकसरकपरशसडवकपरउनकडजशवनकपलममपपणरततआशशतरहडहकतथपमपतसरकपरश सडवककडपशछडककईववधवप / ववधयरअथवपबचचडनहक।
आशशतमपतप - वपतप , अवववपवहत / तलपकशयदप / ववधवपपयतशककपपररवपररकपमशनजशवन पयरनतवमलडगश। "
उलडखनशयहहवकवतरमपनममशशमतशआभपपपणडडयककअपनडपवतसव०हरशशचनद पपणडडय , ववपणनवनरशककककपपररवपररकपमशनपपपहकरहशहह।इसपकपरशशमतशआभप पपणडडयशपसनपदडशवदनपनक 08.12.2008 ममअनवकतवयवसथपकडअनयसपरअपनडपयतसव० अनयरपगपपणडडयपरआशशतनहहहह . शजसकडकपरणशशमतशआभपपपणडडयककउनकडपयत शशअनयरपगपपणडडय , शलवपकककममतययकडपशचपततपपररवपररकपमशनककदडयतपनहहबनतश हह।
अततउपरककपनयसपरववणरततथयकएवनशपसनपदडशवदनपनक 08.12.2008 कडपसतर -7 (3) एवनशपसनपदडशवदनपनक 23.12.2016 कडपसतर -7 (4) ममवनवहतपपववधपनशकडआलककमम ररटयपवचकपसनखयप -8150/2023 आनपपपणडडयबनपमउ०प०रपजयवअनयममपपररत मपननशयउचचनयपयपलय , लखनऊखणडपशठकडवनणरयपदडशवदनपनक 18.10.2023 कड अनयपपलनममयपवचनशशशमतशआभपपपणडडयकपपतयपवडदनवदनपनक 30.10.2023 वनरसत करतडहहयडएतददपरपवनसतपररतवकयपजपतपहह।
Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the authority, while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, has duly considered the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 (referenced in paragraph 7), along with other relevant government orders. The record clearly reflects that the petitioner is already receiving family pension due to her husband’s death, and thus, cannot be considered dependent on her deceased son. Accordingly, She is not entitled to get the family pension after demise of her son.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 18.4.2025 R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Is a widow already receiving family pension for her husband entitled to a second family pension after the death of her son appointed on compassionate grounds?
Abha Pande
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supply Lko
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
