URMILA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging an order dtd. 21/9/2020 passed by respondent no. 3 ' Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur, vide which the claim of the petitioner for payment of family pension has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Basic School run by Basic Shiksha Parishad and was superannuated on 31/3/2016, after which he was getting pension. He passed away on 29/11/2019, therefore, his wife (petitioner herein) became entitled for family pension. The petitioner (wife) moved an application requesting for sanction of family pension. However, her claim of family pension been rejected vide order impugned dtd. 21/9/2020 on the ground that in the application requesting for payment of pension as moved by the petitioner's husband, in the column 'details of family' in Part-I, name of the petitioner has not been mentioned. As neither in Part-III of the application, photo of the petitioner has been pasted nor her name finds place in the earlier pension papers which were submitted by her husband for sanction of pension.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, admittedly, the petitioner is wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, which has been certified by the Gram Pradhan of the village. Name of petitioner's husband has been mentioned in the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner. Even in the proceedings under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been granted maintenance of Rs.8,000.00 per month which proves that she is the wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, hence she is entitled for family pension.