Allahabad High Court
Pooja vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193870
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15630 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pooja
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Yadav,Krishna Kant Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tanisha Jahangir Monir
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. This present matter has been nominated before this Court by the order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
2. Heard Sri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent no.1 and Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, who appears for the respondent nos.2 to 4.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that she is a married daughter of one Sri Munna Lal, who was working as Chowkidar in the Tax Department of Nagar Nigam, Agra, who expired on 22.01.2022 post retirement. The writ petitioner claims to be the married daughter, who solemnized marriage with one Sri Raj Kumar on 14.02.2009, however owing to the matrimonial dispute, she is living separately, pursuant to a compromise arrived under Section - 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
4. According to the writ petitioner, she is blessed with two daughters and she is entitled to the payment of family pension in view of the provisions contained under Rule - 3 (3) and 6 of U.P. Retirement Benefits, Rules, 1961. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case of Kumari Haseena B. vs State of U.P., reported in 2023 (8) ADJ 609.
5. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 on the other hand submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the said benefits needs determination at the first instance by the respondent no.2, Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, District - Agra, who shall address to the said issue. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the writ petitioner may represent her cause before the second respondent.
6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 further submits that they do not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
7. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
8. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order, bearing in mind the fundamental and the core issues relating to the entitlement of the writ petitioner for family pension, competing claims, if any, the applicability of the Government Orders or the statutory schemes, providing the same in vogue and any other ancillary or incidental issue governing the subject.
9. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
S Rawat
