Allahabad High Court
ARUNDHATI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
A legally wedded wife is statutorily entitled to family pension and death gratuity irrespective of any nomination in favor of the mother, rendering the order rejecting her claim arbitrary and illegal.
Summary
The petitioner, Arundhati Devi, wife of the deceased employee Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her claim for family pension and death gratuity. The respondents rejected her claim on the ground that the deceased had nominated his mother for all retiral benefits in his service records. The petitioner argued that, under the Civil Service Regulations and the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, a legally wedded wife is entitled to family pension irrespective of any nomination. The Court referred to a prior decision (Urmila Singh v. State of U.P.) where a similar nomination was held not to defeat the wife's entitlement. Finding the order dated 25.08.2026 arbitrary and illegal, the Court quashed it and remitted the matter to the respondent to decide afresh, considering the earlier judgment.
Issues considered
- Does a nomination of the mother for retiral benefits override the statutory entitlement of a legally wedded wife to family pension under the Civil Service Regulations and U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961?
- Is the order rejecting the wife's claim for family pension and death gratuity arbitrary and illegal?
- Should death gratuity be payable to the wife despite the nomination in favor of the mother?
Subjects
- family pension
- death gratuity
- nomination
- Civil Service Regulations
- U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules
- writ petition
- arbitrary order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15402 of 2026
Arundhati Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivendra Singh Bhadauria
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and Mr. Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel for
the respondent-BSA and perused the records.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2026
passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of
family pension has been rejected, and with a further prayer to direct the
respondents to pay the entire dues of family pension to the petitioner along
with interest, and with a further prayer to direct the respondent concerned to
disburse the death gratuity along with interest to the petitioner in the light of
G.O. dated 16.09.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of
the deceased, namely, Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi, who was staying at her
parental home owing to some matrimonial dispute with her husband. After
the death of the petitioner's husband, her claim for family pension has been
rejected vide order dated 25.08.2026 on the ground that respondent No. 5,
who is the mother of the deceased employee, had been nominated by the
deceased employee Late Sarvesh Kumar Dwivedi in his service records for
payment of all retiral benefits. The said order is not in consonance with the
relevant Family Pension Rules, i.e. the Civil Service Regulations and the
U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961. A similar issue came up for
consideration before this Court under similar circumstances, where the wife
was not staying with her husband and the mother-in-law was nominated. The
petitioner therein, namely, Urmila Singh, approached this Court by means of
filing Writ-A No. 5545 of 2021, which came to be decided on 24.07.2025,
WRIA No. 15402 of 2026
2
wherein this Court observed that the petitioner, being the legally wedded
wife, was entitled for family pension. Therefore, the impugned order is
arbitrary and illegal. Hence the same may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. could not dispute the aforesaid
fact.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 passed by
respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 3 to decide afresh, keeping in
mind the observations made by this Court in Writ-A No. 5545 of 2021
(Urmila Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), after hearing all concerned,
including respondent No. 5 - Smt. Sarojini Devi, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
September 23, 2026
Jitendra/-
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…