High Court · 2025

duly sanctioned to Shri Ahmad. In the form that had been submitted by father of the petitioner namely Shri Ahmad on

30.11.2001, a copy of which is annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 05.09.2022 the name of the petitioner was not indicated as a dependent rather three sons of Shri Ahmad were indicated. Subsequent thereto Shri Ahmad died on 31.01.2007. Thereafter the mother of the petitioner started receiving family pension. The mother of the petitioner also died on 07.05.2021. After death of her mother the petitioner staked her claim for being granted family pension by indicating that although at the time of retirement of her father on 31.01.2000 she was married having got married on 02.06.1996 yet during the lifetime of her mother the petitioner's husband died on 16.03.2017 and the petitioner became a widow. On the basis of a government order dated 03.12.2012, a copy of which is annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit, which has been adopted by the Corporation on 16.05.2015, a copy of which is annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit, as well as the government order dated 20.05.2014, a copy of which is annexure 15 the writ petition, the petitioner staked her claim for being given family pension. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated

02.04.2022 on the ground that in the pension papers that had been submitted by her father her name was not contained therein. Later, in the pension papers which had been submitted by her mother, the petitioner was not indicated as a dependent and neither the competent authority has submitted part 2 for family pension pertaining to the claim of the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the government order dated 03.12.2012 as has been adopted by the Corporation itself a situation, as has arisen in the instant case is contemplated. Further even if the name of the petitioner is not contained in the pension papers that had been submitted by her father yet considering the government order dated

20.05.2014, it was always open for the petitioner to submit her claim for being given family pension on account of she having become a widow subsequent to death of her father, the pensioner, and during his lifetime of her mother who was on receipt of family pension but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the competent authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for family pension.

6. Responding Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the Corporation has argued that when at the time of retirement of her father on 31.01.2000 the petitioner was married consequently she cannot be said to be dependent on her father so as to now entail her to be given family pension even if she has become a widow subsequent to death of her father and thus the aforesaid government order would not come to aid of the petitioner. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi also argues that the pension sanction authority has not received part 2 of pension papers from the end of petitioner or her mother and as such family pension cannot be sanctioned to the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the petitioner's father Shri Malik Imtiyaz Ahmad was an employee of the Corporation who retired on 31.01.2000 and was in receipt of pension subsequent to his retirement. At the time of retirement of her father the petitioner was already married, having got married in the year 1996. The petitioner's father died on 31.01.2007 and thereafter the petitioner's mother started receiving family pension. The husband of the petitioner died on 16.3.2017 and thus the petitioner became a widow. The petitioner's mother died on 07.05.2021 and subsequent thereto the petitioner has staked her claim for being given family pension in terms of Government Order dated 03.12.2012 and 20.05.2014 which contemplates the situation as has arisen in the instant case.

8. The claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has not found favour with the respondents and has been rejected vide order impugned 02.04.2022. Perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that two grounds have prevailed on the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner namely (a) that in the pension papers that had been submitted by the petitioner's father her name is not indicated and (b) the pension papers have not been submitted for family pension.

9. Both the grounds as have been taken by the Corporation are found to be patently misconceived. The reasons are that at the time the petitioner's father submitted pension papers after his retirement in the year 2000 the petitioner could not be said to be a dependent on her father as she was a married lady having got married in the year 1996. The situation which has resulted in the petitioner becoming a widow i.e. death of petitioner's husband, has arisen much subsequent to death of petitioner's father, he having died on 31.01.2007 and the petitioner's husband having died on 16.03.2017. This aspect of matter has been considered in Government Order dated 03.12.2012 more particularly in clause 4 of the said Government Order which categorically provides that where a pensioner has retired prior to 01.01.2006 then whether the daughter has either been divorced or has become a widow either before attaining the age of 25 years or subsequent thereto, in both the eventualities, the daughter would be entitled for pension. In the instant case also as the petitioner's father had retired prior to 01.01.2006 and the petitioner had become a widow subsequent to attaining the age of 25 years consequently clause 4 of the Government Order dated 03.12.2012 as has been adopted by the Corporation vide its decision dated 16.05.2015 would clearly come into play and thus the petitioner would clearly be entitled for family pension in accordance with law.

10. So far as non submission of pension papers to pension sanctioning authority through the Head of Department is concerned, the said ground is also found to be patently misconceived considering that in terms of aforesaid Government Order as well as Government Order dated

20.05.2014 a person claiming family pension would be entitled to submit her claim which has to be considered in accordance with law and relevant government orders.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 02.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside.

12. The petitioner shall apply for grant of family pension within a period of two weeks alongwith necessary papers to respondent no. 3 i.e. Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Purvanchal, VVNL, Siddharth Nagar, U.P. alongwith certified copy of this order. Upon the petitioner applying for the same, her application for family pension would be considered in accordance with law and relevant rules after the respondent no. 3 forwards it to the respondent no. 2 which application would be forwarded within next two weeks of the petitioner submitting her application to respondent no. 2.

13. While submitting the application, the copy of previous part 2 of the pension documents, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition, would again be annexed by the petitioner alongwith the said application. Upon submission of application the final decision would be taken in the matter within next six weeks of the said application being received. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

duly sanctioned to Shri Ahmad. In the form that had been submitted by father of the petitioner namely Shri Ahmad on

30.11.2001, a copy of which is annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 05.09.2022 the name of the petitioner was not indicated as a dependent rather three sons of Shri Ahmad were indicated. Subsequent thereto Shri Ahmad died on 31.01.2007. Thereafter the mother of the petitioner started receiving family pension. The mother of the petitioner also died on 07.05.2021. After death of her mother the petitioner staked her claim for being granted family pension by indicating that although at the time of retirement of her father on 31.01.2000 she was married having got married on 02.06.1996 yet during the lifetime of her mother the petitioner's husband died on 16.03.2017 and the petitioner became a widow. On the basis of a government order dated 03.12.2012, a copy of which is annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit, which has been adopted by the Corporation on 16.05.2015, a copy of which is annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit, as well as the government order dated 20.05.2014, a copy of which is annexure 15 the writ petition, the petitioner staked her claim for being given family pension. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated

02.04.2022 on the ground that in the pension papers that had been submitted by her father her name was not contained therein. Later, in the pension papers which had been submitted by her mother, the petitioner was not indicated as a dependent and neither the competent authority has submitted part 2 for family pension pertaining to the claim of the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the government order dated 03.12.2012 as has been adopted by the Corporation itself a situation, as has arisen in the instant case is contemplated. Further even if the name of the petitioner is not contained in the pension papers that had been submitted by her father yet considering the government order dated

20.05.2014, it was always open for the petitioner to submit her claim for being given family pension on account of she having become a widow subsequent to death of her father, the pensioner, and during his lifetime of her mother who was on receipt of family pension but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the competent authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for family pension.

6. Responding Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the Corporation has argued that when at the time of retirement of her father on 31.01.2000 the petitioner was married consequently she cannot be said to be dependent on her father so as to now entail her to be given family pension even if she has become a widow subsequent to death of her father and thus the aforesaid government order would not come to aid of the petitioner. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi also argues that the pension sanction authority has not received part 2 of pension papers from the end of petitioner or her mother and as such family pension cannot be sanctioned to the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the petitioner's father Shri Malik Imtiyaz Ahmad was an employee of the Corporation who retired on 31.01.2000 and was in receipt of pension subsequent to his retirement. At the time of retirement of her father the petitioner was already married, having got married in the year 1996. The petitioner's father died on 31.01.2007 and thereafter the petitioner's mother started receiving family pension. The husband of the petitioner died on 16.3.2017 and thus the petitioner became a widow. The petitioner's mother died on 07.05.2021 and subsequent thereto the petitioner has staked her claim for being given family pension in terms of Government Order dated 03.12.2012 and 20.05.2014 which contemplates the situation as has arisen in the instant case.

8. The claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has not found favour with the respondents and has been rejected vide order impugned 02.04.2022. Perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that two grounds have prevailed on the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner namely (a) that in the pension papers that had been submitted by the petitioner's father her name is not indicated and (b) the pension papers have not been submitted for family pension.

9. Both the grounds as have been taken by the Corporation are found to be patently misconceived. The reasons are that at the time the petitioner's father submitted pension papers after his retirement in the year 2000 the petitioner could not be said to be a dependent on her father as she was a married lady having got married in the year 1996. The situation which has resulted in the petitioner becoming a widow i.e. death of petitioner's husband, has arisen much subsequent to death of petitioner's father, he having died on 31.01.2007 and the petitioner's husband having died on 16.03.2017. This aspect of matter has been considered in Government Order dated 03.12.2012 more particularly in clause 4 of the said Government Order which categorically provides that where a pensioner has retired prior to 01.01.2006 then whether the daughter has either been divorced or has become a widow either before attaining the age of 25 years or subsequent thereto, in both the eventualities, the daughter would be entitled for pension. In the instant case also as the petitioner's father had retired prior to 01.01.2006 and the petitioner had become a widow subsequent to attaining the age of 25 years consequently clause 4 of the Government Order dated 03.12.2012 as has been adopted by the Corporation vide its decision dated 16.05.2015 would clearly come into play and thus the petitioner would clearly be entitled for family pension in accordance with law.

10. So far as non submission of pension papers to pension sanctioning authority through the Head of Department is concerned, the said ground is also found to be patently misconceived considering that in terms of aforesaid Government Order as well as Government Order dated

20.05.2014 a person claiming family pension would be entitled to submit her claim which has to be considered in accordance with law and relevant government orders.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 02.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside.

12. The petitioner shall apply for grant of family pension within a period of two weeks alongwith necessary papers to respondent no. 3 i.e. Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Purvanchal, VVNL, Siddharth Nagar, U.P. alongwith certified copy of this order. Upon the petitioner applying for the same, her application for family pension would be considered in accordance with law and relevant rules after the respondent no. 3 forwards it to the respondent no. 2 which application would be forwarded within next two weeks of the petitioner submitting her application to respondent no. 2.

13. While submitting the application, the copy of previous part 2 of the pension documents, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition, would again be annexed by the petitioner alongwith the said application. Upon submission of application the final decision would be taken in the matter within next six weeks of the said application being received. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench