Allahabad High Court
SHABANA BEGUMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court directed the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation within twelve weeks, without examining the merits of the pension claim.
Summary
The petitioner, Shabana Begum, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide her claim for a family pension under a government order dated 03.12.2012. She had already submitted a representation on 16.06.2021 to respondent No.4, which remained pending. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the pending representation rendered the writ petition unnecessary, and the standing counsel concurred, urging the court to direct the respondent to act on the representation. The court, noting that the matter had not been examined on merits, ordered respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation within twelve weeks, after providing a hearing to all parties. The petition was subsequently disposed without a substantive merits decision.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial remedy when a representation filed with an administrative authority remains pending?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the consideration and decision of a pending representation without examining the merits of the underlying claim?
Subjects
- family pension
- mandamus
- writ petition
- representation
- administrative law
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14772 of 2026
Shabana Begum
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Shahadat
Husain
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"I.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's
claim/representation for grant of family pension as per Government order
dated 03.12.2012."
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has
already moved a representation in this regard on 16.06.2021 before
respondent No. 4, which is pending consideration
3. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as petitioner has already
represented, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending and it would be appropriate that respondent be directed to
consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. In view of these facts, respondent No. 4 is directed to consider and
decide the representation dated 16.06.2021 of the petitioner in accordance
with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned
parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of this order.
5. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits
and the order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.
WRIA No. 14772 of 2026
2
6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 23, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…