# Dr. A.P. Bajpai v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1594
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-13
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No.2965 (S/S) of 1993
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-a-p-bajpai-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42813
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A)Constitution of India, Art.-226 read with
U.P. Recruitment benefits Rule 1961-Rule7-Family
pension-entitlement-petitioner
being grand son of deceased employee put
claim after the death of widow and son of
the employee-admittedly when deceased
government employee-died-the father of
petitioner already crossed age of 25 yearsheld-not entitled for family pension.

Held: Para-14
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
also
filed
Government
Order
No.
lk&3&115@nl&3@82
dated
24.2.1998
(Annexure
No.
5
to
the
amended
petition), which provides for maximum
age limit for entitlement of family
pension and this maximum age limit was
enhanced from 21 years to 25 years in
case of sons. In case of daughter, it was
enhanced from 24 years to 25 years.
Meaning thereby after attaining age of
25 years the son of a government
servant shall not be entitled for the
payment of family pension provided he
remain unemployed till attaining the age
of 25 years. Even if the son of the
deceased
petitioner
Dr.
A.P.
Bajpai
would have survived even then he was
not entitled for the family pension
because he has crossed the maximum
age limit of 25 years much earlier. The
sons of Sameer Bajpai could not inherit
better
right
then
his
own
father.
Therefore, in the facts of this case, in our
considered opinion, family pension is not
payable to the present petitioners. Order
dated
22.12.2010
rejecting
the
representation of the petitioner for grant
of family pension need not to be
interfered with.

(B)Constitution of India, Art.-226-Payment
of interest-at rate of 12%-for period
payment delayed claim based upon G.O.
06.12.94-entitled for interest @ 12%.
3 All] Dr. A.P.Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1595
Held: Para-11 and 12-
11-In view of the aforesaid case laws, it
is clear that payment of pension is a
right and that too has to be paid at the
earliest stage. It is the right of the
government servant. In the facts of this
case, the State had utterly failed to make
payment of the pension of Dr. A.P. Bajpai
within
time.
There
is
no
specific
averment in the counter affidavit that
interest on the delayed payment has also
been paid.

12-Learned counsel for the petitioner has
brought to the notice to the Court a
Government
Order
No.
lk&3&2102@nl&971@80 dated 6.12.1994
whereby order for payment of interest on
delayed
payments
was
modified
and
provision was made for payment of 12%
interest per annum on delayed payment of
pension, which is payable on delayed
payment of provident fund. Therefore, the
petitioners were entitled for interest at the
rate of 12% per annum on the delayed
payment of gratuity and family pension.

Case Law discussed:
(1989) 4 SCC 397; (1985) 3 SCC 345; 1997
A.W.C.(Supp.) 204.

## Text

1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that
the
relation
of
respondentCorporation as well as the petitioner was
of the Master and Agent. The respondent-
corporation created an agency in favour of
the petitioner and the petitioner was
engaged to work as an agent of the
Corporation. The terms of agency are
governed
under
the
Life
Insurance
Corporation of India ( Agents) Rules,
1972, The rules speak that the Agents are
appointed on commission basis. The
nature of the engagement of the petitioner
( Agent) does not lead to prove an
appointment alike to Government servant.
Therefore, I am of the view that the
petitioner being an Agent could not claim
the benefit of service like Civil Servants,
unless it is provided under the Rules. The
rules do not provide so.

19. Upon perusal of the record, I
find that the conditions for termination of
agency were followed. The proviso of the
Rule 16 (1) of the Rules provides that the
Agent
shall
be
given
reasonable
opportunity
to
show
against
such
termination.
He
was
provided
so.
Therefore, the order impugned cannot be
held to be suffered from error.

20. In the result, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH
RATHORE, J.

Writ Petition No.2965 (S/S) of 1993

Dr. A.P. Bajpai... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, Sri Vikas Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A)Constitution of India, Art.-226 read with
U.P. Recruitment benefits Rule 1961-Rule7-Family
pension-entitlement-petitioner
being grand son of deceased employee put
claim after the death of widow and son of
the employee-admittedly when deceased
government employee-died-the father of
petitioner already crossed age of 25 yearsheld-not entitled for family pension.

Held: Para-14
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
also
filed
Government
Order
No.
lk&3&115@nl&3@82
dated
24.2.1998
(Annexure
No.
5
to
the
amended
petition), which provides for maximum
age limit for entitlement of family
pension and this maximum age limit was
enhanced from 21 years to 25 years in
case of sons. In case of daughter, it was
enhanced from 24 years to 25 years.
Meaning thereby after attaining age of
25 years the son of a government
servant shall not be entitled for the
payment of family pension provided he
remain unemployed till attaining the age
of 25 years. Even if the son of the
deceased
petitioner
Dr.
A.P.
Bajpai
would have survived even then he was
not entitled for the family pension
because he has crossed the maximum
age limit of 25 years much earlier. The
sons of Sameer Bajpai could not inherit
better
right
then
his
own
father.
Therefore, in the facts of this case, in our
considered opinion, family pension is not
payable to the present petitioners. Order
dated
22.12.2010
rejecting
the
representation of the petitioner for grant
of family pension need not to be
interfered with.

(B)Constitution of India, Art.-226-Payment
of interest-at rate of 12%-for period
payment delayed claim based upon G.O.
06.12.94-entitled for interest @ 12%.
3 All] Dr. A.P.Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1595
Held: Para-11 and 12-
11-In view of the aforesaid case laws, it
is clear that payment of pension is a
right and that too has to be paid at the
earliest stage. It is the right of the
government servant. In the facts of this
case, the State had utterly failed to make
payment of the pension of Dr. A.P. Bajpai
within
time.
There
is
no
specific
averment in the counter affidavit that
interest on the delayed payment has also
been paid.

12-Learned counsel for the petitioner has
brought to the notice to the Court a
Government
Order
No.
lk&3&2102@nl&971@80 dated 6.12.1994
whereby order for payment of interest on
delayed
payments
was
modified
and
provision was made for payment of 12%
interest per annum on delayed payment of
pension, which is payable on delayed
payment of provident fund. Therefore, the
petitioners were entitled for interest at the
rate of 12% per annum on the delayed
payment of gratuity and family pension.

Case Law discussed:
(1989) 4 SCC 397; (1985) 3 SCC 345; 1997
A.W.C.(Supp.) 204.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State of U.P. and perused the material
available on record.

2. The instant writ petition was
initially filed by Dr. A.P. Bajpai (since
deceased) with the following prayer:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite parties to pay the pension of the
petitioner regularly as well as pay the
arrears of pension with effect from
1.6.1988 and further be pleased to issue
direction to the opposite parties to pay the
provisional
pension
with
immediate
effect.

(ii) grant any other relief that this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and
just under the circumstances."

3. The case of the petitioner is that he
joined the Provincial Medical Service U.P. in
March, 1961. After serving on different post,
he attained the age of superannuation on
31.5.1988 from the post of Deputy Director
Medical Health & Family Welfare. He
submitted his pension papers but till the date
of filing of the instant petition, no pension was
paid to him. Representations were made by
him in the month of March, 1991 and
reminder was sent on 2.9.1992 but that too
paid no dividend. Gratuity was also not paid,
which was Rs. 61876/-. In the pension papers,
as family members of the petitioner names of
his wife Suman Bajpai and son Sameer Bajpai
were mentioned. After filing of the instant
petition, pension payment order was issued on
27.4.1994 wherein wrong date of his attaining
the age of superannuation was mentioned,
however, the same was subsequently rectified.
During the pendency of the instant petition on
11.4.2004 the only son of the petitioner
Sameer Bajpai expired and in the same year
on 18.8.2004 wife of the petitioner Smt.
Suman Bajpai also expired. The petitioner
himself expired on 23.7.2007 and thereafter
the present petitioners, who happens to be
wife and minor son of Sameer Bajpai were
substituted as petitioners and they have also
amended the prayer and have made the
following prayer:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite parties to pay the pension of the
petitioner regularly as well as pay the
arrears of pension with effect from
01.06.1988 and further be pleased to issue
1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direction to the opposite parties to pay the
provisional pension with immediate effect
"and further direct the opposite parties to
pay 12% interest to the petitioner on the
post
retirement
dues
including
the
payment of monthly pension till the post
retirement dues are settled or finally paid
to the petitioner and submit a statement of
account in respect of payment of post
retirement
dues
such
as
gratuity,
Provident
Fund,
leave
encashment,
commuted value of pension and monthly
pension particularly the date of amount.

(i-a) to direct the opposite parties to
pay monthly pension to the grandson of
the deceased petitioner as provided under
rule 7 read with rule 3 (ix) of the U.P.
Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 forthwith.

(i-b) issue a writ of certiorari or a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the letter dated
22.12.2010 (contained in Annexure -14 to
the writ petition) by means of which the
claim of the petitioners to grant family
pension to the grandson of the deceased
petitioner was rejected."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that to grant the family
pension in favour of the minor sons of
pre-deceased son of Dr. A.P. Bajpai, a
representation was moved before the
competent authority but the same was
rejected by means of letter dated
22.12.2010. Further submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that family
members of Dr. A.P. Bajpai are entitled to
get the interest on the outstanding dues
and on delayed payment of retiral benefits
and sons of predeceased son also entitled
for the family pension. He has drawn the
attention of the Court towards the
provisions
of
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, Rule 3
defines the family, which reads as under:-

(3) "Family" means the following
relative of an officer;

(i) wife, in the case of any male
officer,

(ii) husband, in the case of a female
officer,

(iii) sons (including such stepchildren and adopted children)

(iv)
unmarried
and
widowed
daughters (Including such step-children
and adopted children)

(v) Brothers below the age of 18
years and unmarried and widowed sisters
(including step-brothers and step-sisters),

(vi) father,

(vii) mother

(viii) married daughters (including
step-daughters), and

(ix) children of a predeceased son;

7. Family Pension.-(1) A family
pension
not
exceeding
the
amount
specified in sub-rule (2) below may be
granted for a period of ten years to the
family of an officer who dies, whether
after retirement or while still in service
after completion of not less than 20 years'
qualifying service:

Provided that the period of payment
of family pension shall in no case extend
beyond a period of five years from the
date on which the deceased officer
reached or would have reached the age of
compulsory retirement.

Notes.-(1) Government may,.
It
exceptional circumstances, consider at
their discretion the award of family
pension of the family of an officer who
may die before completing 20 year's
3 All] Dr. A.P.Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1597
qualifying service but after completing
not less than 20 years' qualifying services.

(2) In cases where the qualifying
service is less than the prescribed minimum
the deficiency should not be condoned by
invoking the provisions of Article 423 (1) of
the Civil Service Regulations.

(2). The amount of family pension
will be-

(a) in the event of death while in
service, one-half of the superannuation
pension
which
would
have
been
admissible to the officer has been retired
on the date following the date of his
death, and

(b) In the event of death after
retirement, one-half of the pension
sanctioned to him at the time of
retirement:

Provided that the amount of family
pension will be subject to a maximum of
Rs. 150 per mensem and a minimum of
Rs. 30 per mensem:

Provided further that the minimum
pension will not in any case, exceed the
full amount of the pension sanctioned to
the deceased officer at the time of his
retirement or in case he dies while in
service, the pension that would have been
admissible to him if he had retired on a
superannuation pension on the date
following the date of his death.

Note.- The amount of family pension
will be reduced by the amount of pension
commuted, if any, by the pensioner before
his death. For example, if the ordinary
pension was Rs. 90 per mensem and an
amount of Rs. 30 out of this had been
commuted, the amount of family pension
will be Rs. 90/2-30= Rs. 15 per mensem.

(3) No pension shall be payable
under this Part-

(a) to a person mentioned in clause
(b) of sub-rule (4) below, unless the
pension sanctioning authority is satisfied
that such person was dependent on the
deceased officer for support;

(b) to an unmarried female member
of the family, in the event of her
remarriage;

(c) to widowed female member of
the family, in the event of her remarriage;

(d) to a brother of the deceased
officer on his attaining the age of 18
years; and

(e) to a person who is not a member
of the deceased officer's family.

(4) Except as may be provided by a
nomination under sub-rule (5) below:

(a) a pension sanctioned under this
Part shall be granted-

(i) to the eldest surviving widow, if
the deceased was a female officer;

(ii) failing the widow or husband, as
the case maybe to the eldest surviving
son;

(iii) failing (i) and (ii) above, to the
eldest surviving unmarried daughter,

(iv) these failing, to the eldest
widowed daughter and

(b) in the event of the pension not
becoming payable under clause (a) the
pension may be granted-

(i) to the father;

(ii) failing the father, to the mother;

(iii) failing the father and mother
both, to the eldest surviving brother below
the age of 18;

(iv) these failing, to the eldest
surviving unmarried sister;
1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) these failing (i) to (iv) above, to
the children of a predeceased son in the
order it is payable to the children of the
deceased officer under clause (a) (ii), (iii)
and (iv), above.

Note.-
The
expression
"eldesta
surviving widow" occurring in clause (a)
(i) above, should be construed with
reference to the seniority according to the
date of marriage with the officer and not
with reference to the age of surviving
Widows.

(5) A Government Servant shall
immediately after his confirmation, make
a nomination in Form "E" indicating the
order in which a pension sanctioned under
his Part should be payable to the members
of his family, and to the extent it is valid
the pension will be payable in accordance
with such nomination provided the
nominee concerned is not ineligible, on
the date on which the pension may
become payable to him or her to receive
the pension under the provisions of subrule (3), In case the nominee concerned is
or has become ineligible to receive the
pension under the said sub-rule, the
pension shall be granted to the person
next lower in the order in such
nomination. The provisions of sub-rules
(5) (b), (7) and (8) of rule 6 shall apply in
respect of nomination under this sub-rule

(6) (a) A pension awarded under this
Part shall not be payable to more than one
member of the deceased officer's family at
the same time.

(b) If a pension awarded under this
Part ceases to be payable before the
expiry of the period mentioned in the
proviso to sub-rule (1) on account of
death or marriage of the recipient or any
other cause, it will be re-granted to the
person next lower in the order mentioned
in sub-rule (4) or to the person next lower
in the order shown in the nomination
under sub-rule (5), as the case may be,
who satisfied the other provisions of this
Part.

(7) A pension sanctioned under this
Part will be tenable in addition to any
extraordinary
pension,
gratuity
or
compensation that may be granted to the
members or an officer's family under the
existing rules or Acts.

(8) Future good conduct of the
recipient is an implied condition of every
grant
of
pension
under
this
part.
Government reserve to themselves the
right of withholding or withdrawing such
pension or any part thereof, if the
recipient be convicted of serious crime or
be guilty of grave misconduct. Decision
of the Government in such matters shall
be final.

5. In the counter affidavit dated
30.10.2012, it has been stated that the
petitioner
retired
from
service
on
31.5.1988 after attaining the age of
superannuation and he has been paid all
his post retiral dues in his lifetime. It is
further stated that the deceased had died
on 23.7.2007 and after his death, on
8.12.2008, a Government Order was
issued pursuant to recommendations of
the Pay Commission with respect to
payment
of
pension/gratuity/family
pension and encashment. By virtue of the
aforesaid
government
order
dated
8.12.2008 the same has been made
applicable on the government servants,
who retired or had died on 1.1.2006 and
thereafter. Since the petitioner had died
subsequent to the said cut off date,
3 All] Dr. A.P.Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1599
therefore the aforesaid government order
would be applicable in the instant case.
As per the provisions of the aforesaid
government order for the purpose of
admissibility of pension, family has been
classified in two parts;

Class-(1) A widow/widower, till life
time or till remarriage whichever is earlier
by
son/daughter
(including
widow
daughter) till marriage/remarriage.

Class-(2) (c)
Unmarried/widow/divorced daughter who
is not covered by Class-1 till marriage or
remarriage
or
from
the
date
of
employment or till death whichever is
earlier.

(d) Such mother and father who were
dependent upon the government servant
in his life time and the government
servant
had
not
left
behind
any
widow/widower or children.

6. Submission is that family pension is
a right of government servant, which accrued
on the ground of his long length of service. It
is not a bounty or gifts of the department.
Therefore, the department is liable to make
the payment of pension within time. If there
is any unreasonable or undue delay in the
payment of the same then the interest shall be
payable on him. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance on some case
laws, which shall be considered at the
relevant part of the judgment.

7. The prayer of the petitioners by
means of amended petition is now two
folds; first is with regard to the interest on
the delayed payment of pension and the
second is regarding family pension in
favour of the minor sons of the
predeceased son.

8. So far as the first submission is
concerned, it is clear from the averments
made in the petition and also in the
counter affidavit that pension was paid
after a considerable delay. The petitioner
stood retired on 31.5.1988 and the PPO
was issued for the first time on 27.4.1994
i.e. after about six years of his attaining
the age of superannuation.

9. However, it has been pleaded on
behalf of the respondents that entire
payment has been made but the details of
the said payment have not been specified
in the counter affidavit. It is not clear
from the perusal of the counter affidavit
whether any interest on the delayed
payment has been paid or not. It has
nowhere specifically been pleaded in the
counter affidavit that any interest has been
paid on the delayed payment.

10. For payment of pension, learned
counsel for the petitioner has place
reliance upon the pronouncement of
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Smt. Bhagwanti Vs. Union of India
reported in (1989) 4 SCC 397 has held in
paragraph no. 9 as under:-

"9. Pension is payable, as pointed out
in several judgments of this Court, on the
consideration of past service rendered by
the government servant. Payability of the
family pension is basically on the
selfsame consideration. Since pension is
linked with past service and the avowed
purpose of the Pension Rules is to provide
sustenance in old age, distinction between
marriage during service and marriage
after retirement appears to be indeed
arbitrary........................"

Reliance has also been placed on the
pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in the case of Smt. Poonamal and
1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345 wherein the
Hon'ble Court has held in paragraph no. 7
as under:-

"7. It is not necessary to examine the
concept of pension. As already held by
this Court in numerous judgments pension
is a right not a bounty or gratuitous
payment. The payment of pension does
not depend upon the discretion of the
Government but is governed by the
relevant rules and anyone entitled to the
pension under the rules can claim it as a
matter of right. (Deoki Nandan Prasad v.
State of Bihar 1971 Supp SWCR 634;
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1976) 3
SCR 360). Where the Government servant
rendered service to compensate which a
family pension scheme is devised, the
widow and the dependent minors would
equally be entitled to family pension as a
matter of right. In fact we look upon
pension not merely as a statutory right but
as a fulfillment of a constitutional promise
inasmuch as it partakes the character of
public
assistance
in
cases
of
unemployment, old-age, disablement or
similar other cases of undeserved want.
Relevant rules merely make effective the
constitutional mandate. ......................"

Reliance has also been placed on the
pronouncement of Division Bench of this
Court in the case of C.M. Wahal (Decd.),
through L.Rs. Vs. Divisional Manager,
L.I.C. Of India, Varanasi and another
reported in 1997 A.W.C. (Supp.) 204 has
held in paragraph no. 5 as under:-

"5. In the instant case, there is
culpable delay in making the payment of
outstanding dues to the petitioner. In
paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counteraffidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
respondents, it has been stated that since
certain enquiries were pending against the
petitioner, therefore, the payment of his
outstanding dues was withheld. But
neither the nature of such enquiry has
been disclosed, nor is there anything on
the record to establish the pendency of the
enquiry against the petitioner. Only vague
allegations have been made about it. It is
admitted that no disciplinary enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner either
before or after his retirement and no such
enquiry was pending at the time of his
retirement. Therefore, there was no
justification to withhold the payment of
the outstanding dues of the petitioner for a
period
of
about
four
years.
The
respondents did did not take any effective
step for payment of the dues to the
petitioner
inspite
of
his
repeated
representations and reminders to various
functionaries of the L.I.C. The petitioner
ultimately had to file the writ petition and
in view of the order of this Court
directing, the L.I.C. To decide the
representations regarding non-payment of
the dues, the payment was made in 1989.
under law, the respondents were bound to
make the payment to the petitioner his all
outstanding dues at the time of retirement
or in any case immediately thereafter. But
they have failed to discharge their legal
obligation. Therefore, they have to pay
the interest to compensate the petitioner
for retention of the amount belonging to
him."

11. In view of the aforesaid case
laws, it is clear that payment of pension is
a right and that too has to be paid at the
earliest stage. It is the right of the
government servant. In the facts of this
case, the State had utterly failed to make
payment of the pension of Dr. A.P. Bajpai
within time. There is no specific averment
3 All] Smt. Premawati Vs. State of U.P.
1601
in the counter affidavit that interest on the
delayed payment has also been paid.

12. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has brought to the notice to the
Court
a
Government
Order
No.
lk&3&2102@nl&971@80
dated
6.12.1994 whereby order for payment of
interest
on
delayed
payments
was
modified and provision was made for
payment of 12% interest per annum on
delayed payment of pension, which is
payable on delayed payment of provident
fund. Therefore, the petitioners were
entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per
annum on the delayed payment of gratuity
and family pension.

13. Now the next point is to be
considered whether petitioner no. 1/2 and
1/3 being the son of the predeceased son
are entitled for family pension or not. The
date of birth of the predeceased son
Sameer Bajpai was mentioned in the
pension papers as 15.4.1961. Sameer
Bajpai expired on 11.4.2004, which
means that on the date of his death, he
was about 43 years old. Dr. A.P. Bajpai
expired on 23.7.2007. Dr. A.P. Bajpai
died
after
coming
into
force
of
government
order
of
2008
dated
8.12.2008.

14. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also filed Government
Order No. lk&3&115@nl&3@82 dated
24.2.1998 (Annexure No. 5 to the
amended petition), which provides for
maximum age limit for entitlement of
family pension and this maximum age
limit was enhanced from 21 years to 25
years in case of sons. In case of daughter,
it was enhanced from 24 years to 25
years. Meaning thereby after attaining age
of 25 years the son of a government
servant shall not be entitled for the
payment of family pension provided he
remain unemployed till attaining the age
of 25 years. Even if the son of the
deceased petitioner Dr. A.P. Bajpai would
have survived even then he was not
entitled for the family pension because he
has crossed the maximum age limit of 25
years much earlier. The sons of Sameer
Bajpai could not inherit better right then
his own father. Therefore, in the facts of
this case, in our considered opinion,
family pension is not payable to the
present
petitioners.
Order
dated
22.12.2010 rejecting the representation of
the petitioner for grant of family pension
need not to be interfered with.

15. In view of the discussion made
above, this writ petition deserves to be
partly allowed and is hereby partly
allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled
for interest as provided under the relevant
government orders at the rate, which is
admissible under the government orders
on delayed payment of pension and if the
same has not already been paid then the
same shall be paid within a period of three
months from the date a certified copy of
the judgment is produced before the
concerned authority. To this extent the
writ petition is allowed. The second
prayer for grant of family pension in
favour of the son of the predeceased son
is hereby declined.

16. No order as to costs.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3381 of 2013