Disposed

Bhavna Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2026WRIA/3746/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow sought quashing of rejection of her claim for family pension under the old pension scheme, counting her husband's earlier service as Assistant Teacher along with his Food & Civil Supply service. Court found the claim was wrongly rejected by the Regional Food Controller without properly considering the Government Order dated 16.09.2010, permitted a fresh representation to respondent no.2, and

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhavna Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3746 of 2026

Bhavna Verma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supply Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mrinal Tripathi, Birendra Narain Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Uday Veer Singh

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief :

¶11

"(i). Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated-06.12.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 4 which was communicated vide letter dated-08.12.2025 by the District Food Marketing Officer, District-Gonda, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

¶12

(ii). Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to, compute the services of the deceased husband of the petitioner rendered in the department of Basic Education from 12.11.2002 to 22.09.2016 in his services on the post of Marketing Inspector in the Department of Food & Civil Supply and revise the pensionery benefits e.g. family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation etc, under the old pension scheme and to make the payment thereof along with arrears and interest."

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 11.11.2002 under the kind control of District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki and his services were pensionable. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected for the post of Marketting Inspector in the Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of U.P. Thereafter, he was properly relieved by the District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki and the petitioner resumed duties as Marketting Inspector on 24.09.2016. The petitioner died on 10.5.2021 during the period of pandemic COVID 19. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for Family Pension in accordance with the Old Family Pension Scheme as per the Government Oder dated 16.09.2010 issued by the then Principal Secretary, (Finance) but the New Pension Scheme is being given to the petitioner. A representation was made to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, U.P. Lucknow but the said representation was rejected by respondent no. 4 vide order dated 06.12.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that the appointing authority of the Marketting Inspector is Commissioner, Department of Food

¶14

WRIA No. 3746 of 2026

¶15

¶16

and Civil Supply but the claim was wrongly rejected by the Regional Food Controller, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda.

¶17

Shri P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 does not dispute the contents of Government Order dated 16.09.2010. He submitted that claim of the petitioner has already been rejected by Regional Food Controller, Devi Patan, Gonda.

¶18

Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel also submitted that services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was pensionable.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as the impugned order, Government Order dated 16.09.2010 (supra) ; as the appointing authority for the post of Marketting Inspector is Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, Government of U.P. but the claim was wrongly rejected by Regional Food Controller, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda without considering the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 in the correct prospective.

¶20

Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioner to file fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks days from today. In case, any representation is filed, the same shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, considering the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 (supra), as well as other relevant Government Orders within a further period of three weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith.

¶21

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above direction. April 23, 2026 PS

¶22

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhavna Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhavna Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Biswas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saroof @ Saroop vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sachin Verma and 17 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Shanu Khan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Nagar Vikas Anubhag Lko. and 4 Others

Sitaram and Another vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Nitin Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others