Allahabad High Court
SMT. ANEETAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The court disposed of the petition without deciding the merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the appropriate authority.
Summary
Smt. Aneeta filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to grant her family pension with arrears and interest dating from June 26, 2008. The petitioner alleged that despite repeated representations, the pension had not been paid. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bisauli, and did not oppose a direction for the petitioner to make a fresh representation. The court held that there was no merit in continuing the petition and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks, with the respondent to decide it within four months, without making any observation on the merits. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the substantive claim for pension.
Issues considered
- Whether the court should issue a mandamus directing the payment of family pension to the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner should be directed to make a fresh representation before the appropriate executive authority instead of the court deciding the merits.
Subjects
- family pension
- writ petition
- mandamus
- administrative law
- fresh representation
- disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6636 of 2026
Smt. Aneeta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Kumar Kashyap, Virendra Pal
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
representing State-respondents and perused the record on Board.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following relief
:-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and
commanding the respondents/ authority concerned specially the
respondent No. 3 and 4 to provide the family pension to the petitioner
along with arrears, and other consequential benefits including the interest
with effect from 26-06-2008, within some stipulated time frame as fixed
by this Hon'ble court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been paid family pension,
despite repeated representations on her behalf.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that the grievance of the
petitioner can be more appropriately redressed by the Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Bisauli, District Badaun (respondent no.3) and he
has no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh
representation, to be moved by the present petitioner, within such
stipulated period, as may be directed by this Court.
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any
observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner
to move a fresh representation with respect to his grievances, as raised in
WRIA No. 6636 of 2026
2
this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with a
certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ
petition before the respondent no.3, who, in turn, shall consider and
decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within
a period of four months from the date of production of the same, if there
is no other legal impediment.
6. With the aforesaid direction, instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
May 5, 2026
VR
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA RATAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…