Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT SHALINI CHATURVEDIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court disposed of the petition without adjudicating the merits, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Agra.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt Shalini Chaturvedi, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to pay her a family pension as the widow of a deceased Class IV employee. She alleged that despite repeated representations, the pension had not been granted. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Agra, and offered no objection to a court‑directed fresh representation. The Court found that keeping the matter pending would not serve any useful purpose and therefore declined to rule on the merits. It ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Deputy Director within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order, and directed the department to decide the matter within three months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without a substantive ruling on the entitlement to pension.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing payment of family pension to the petitioner.
  • Whether the appropriate remedy lies with the administrative authority (Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department) rather than judicial intervention.

Subjects

  • family pension
  • widow's right
  • mandamus
  • writ petition
  • administrative remedy
  • local fund audit

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - A No. - 6912 of 2026

Smt Shalini Chaturvedi
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                    :   Onkar Nath
Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   C.S.C., Saurabh Tiwari

Court No. - 33
                     HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Saurabh Tiwari, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5; Sri Pankaj Kumar Ashthana,
learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondent nos.1 to 3, and
perused the record on board.

2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking following reliefs:

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner
as widow daughter of her father Late Subhas Chandra Chaturvedi who
was posted as Moharrir/class IV employee in Nagar Palika Parishad
Tundla District Firozabad."

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been granted family pension,
despite the repeated representations moved on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the grievance of the
present petitioner can be more appropriately redressed by the Deputy
Director Local Fund Audit Department, Agra (Respondent No. 3) and
they have no objection, in case, a direction is issued for expeditious
disposal of a fresh representation to be moved by the 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
                                                                                            WRIA No. 6912 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    observation on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to
                                    move a fresh representation before the Deputy Director Local Fund Audit
                                    Department, Agra (Respondent No. 3), with respect to his grievance, as
                                    averred in the present writ petition, within a period of three weeks from
                                    today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of
                                    the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall consider and decide the
                                    same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of
                                    three months from the date of production of the such representation.

                                    6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.



                                                                                            (Dinesh Pathak,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Mini




Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.