Dismissed¶17

Suman Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2026WRIA/3696/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension; deserted daughter; widowed daughter; Deputy Director Secondary Education Ayodhya Region; rejection order dated 31.03.2025; Kutumb Register not annexed; son employed in private sector; quashing refused; mandamus refused; 12% interest on arrears sought; father died 17.03.2018; mother died 06.01.2020; husband died 08.08.2022; writ petition dismissed as misconceived; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Writ - A No. 3696 of 2026; Rajeev Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that no ground for interference was made out: the petition gave neither the details of the family members nor annexed the Kutumb Register, and it was the petitioner's admitted position that her son works in the private sector; accordingly, the petition, being misconceived, stood dismissed ¶17

Suman Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3696 of 2026

Suman Kashyap

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Seema Kashyap, Babita Awasthi, Ram Kishan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2025. A further prayer of mandamus has been sought to direct the respondents to release family pension to the petitioner with effect from the date her mother died, i.e., on 06.01.2020 with the further direction to release the arrears alongwith 12% per annum.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Anil Kumar r/o Village Rewamau, Bakhshi Ka Talab, Lucknow on 05.02.1995. It is further submitted that the petitioner was deserted by her husband, after which, she started residing with her parents since 2018. It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner, who was retired from pensionable service, died on 17.03.2018. Thereafter, her mother also died on 06.01.2020. Thereafter, being a deserted daughter, she is entitled for family pension and she submitted her claim, but the same was rejected by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Ayodhya Region, by way of impugned order dated 31.03.2025 on the ground that she was dependent on her husband. It is vehemently submitted that the husband of the

¶12

WRIA No. 3696 of 2026

¶13

¶14

petitioner also died on 08.08.2022.

¶15

On being asked about the children of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has three children, i.e., one son and two daughters. It is also informed that the brother of the petitioner is also residing with the parent of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner, having no source of income, is entitled for family pension being a widowed daughter and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petition is misconceived, as admittedly, she is aged about 52 years and she admitted that she is having one son and two daughter and her son is doing private job. It is, thus, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶17

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the ground taken by the petitioner claiming family pension is that she is residing with her parents since 2018, but neither the details of the family members are mentioned in the petition nor the Kutumb Register has been annexed. Further, it is admitted case of the petitioner that her son is working in private Sector. In such circumstances no ground for interference is made out. The petition, being misconceived, stands dismissed.

¶18

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶19

April 27, 2026 VKS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suman Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Jas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Ram Kishor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Ojha and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 5 Others

Manoj Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Avadhesh Singh @ Sipahi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Amita Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others