# Smt. Asha Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1262
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No 4960 of 2026
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-asha-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54389
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned counsel for the appellant is not justified and the instant intra court appeal being not
maintainable is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard rival submissions, perusing the record and respectfully considering the
judgments cited at Bar, we find that intra court special appeals in contempt cases are maintainable
only when the contempt court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original
dispute. In the instant matter the contempt court vide order impugned has neither touched the merit
nor has decided any issue and it has not made any direction relating to the merits of the disputes
between the parties. Hence, we find that the contempt court has not overstepped its jurisdiction. We
find that the judgment in Tasneem Fatima (Supra) being per incuriam is not applicable in the
instant matter and the judgments in Subhash Chandra (Supra) and Alok Kumar Yadav (Supra) are
holding the field. As such, no interference is required in the instant intra court appeal.

9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
instant intra court appeal against the order impugned is not maintainable and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1262
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No 4960 of 2026

Smt. Asha Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of first wedded wife to get family pension, particularly when nomination by husband in favour
of second wife is there.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Family pension - Entitlement of first wife - Petitioner's husband was died in
harness - First wife claimed family pension - Daughter of second wedded wife also claimed
compassionate appointment - Effect - B.S.A. required first wife to produce the succession
certificate for payment of family pension - Validity challenged: (E-1)
Held: The second marriage, after the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force, is void. The second wife
does not fall within the definition of 'family,' and any nomination in her favour cannot override the legally
wedded wife's right to family pension, as she qualifies as a family member - As the second marriage is void
under the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner, as the legally wedded wife, is entitled to the family pension.
[Para 16]

Case Law Cited
4 All. Smt. Asha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1263
Manno Singh vs. State of U.P., 2014 (9) ADJ 701; Kiran Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 (3) ADJ
253; Urmila Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2025:AHC:121667; Rafat Naaz and Others vs. State of U.P.
and Others, MANU/UP/5109/2024 - referred to.

List of Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S. 12.

List of Keywords
Died in harness, Legally wedded wife, Family pension, Second wife, Succession certificate, Void marriage,
Family, Eldest surviving widow, Valid nomination.

Case Arising From
Order of District Basic Education Officer dated 02.11.2023 requiring the petitioner, the legally wedded wife, to
produce a succession certificate for the payment of the family pension.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Grijesh Tiwari
Advs. for the Respondents: Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Bansh Gopal Mishra (S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents, Mr. Bansh Gopal Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 5 & 6 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

 "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the
respondents to provide/pay the family pension as well as dues of late Dileep Kumar Singh to the
petitioner being a wife and legal heir in terms of applicable Rules and Schemes by ignoring the
order dated 02.12.2023, passed by the respondent no.5, forthwith or within stipulated period as
fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

 ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding / directing the
respondents to decide the representation dated 06.01.2026 (contained as Annexure No.17 to the
writ petition), filed by the petitioner within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

 iii) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case

 . iv) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

3. Placing brief facts of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's husband, Dileep Kumar Singh, was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the
year 2005 in a Primary School. He died in harness on 05.07.2017, leaving behind the petitioner, his
legally wedded wife, and an adopted son, Vijay Kumar Singh. After the death of the petitioner's
husband, the concerned District Magistrate issued a Family Membership Certificate on 10.12.2019,
recognizing the petitioner as the legally wedded wife and naming Vijay Kumar Singh as the
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adopted son. After receiving the No Dues Certificate from the In-charge of the Primary School
where the petitioner's husband had been working, the petitioner moved an application for payment
of family pension.

4. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5574 of 2023 (Smt. Asha
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by order dated 11.07.2023 directing the
District Basic Education Officer to pass orders for payment of family pension in case the petitioner
is entitled for the same. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, a contempt application
(Civil) No.7209 of 2023 was filed wherein the opposite party was granted further time for
compliance with the orders passed in the writ petition.

5. On 02.12.2023, the Additional Director (Treasury & Pension), Varanasi Region,
Varanasi, directed the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi, as well as the Finance and
Account Officer, to take the necessary steps for the payment of family pension to the petitioner.

6. In the meantime, Vaibhavi Singh, the daughter of the second wife, namely, Pooja Singh,
filed Writ Petition No. 11772 of 2023, seeking a compassionate appointment due to the death of
Late Dileep Kumar Singh. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 11.08.2023,
directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, which was to be decided after hearing the
legally wedded wife, Asha Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the documents, i.e., passport,
Aadhar Card, mutation receipt issued by the Municipal Corporation Varanasi, Voter I.D. Card, and
Domicile Certificate, prove that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and Vijay Kumar Singh is
the adopted son, both of whom are entitled to the payment of family pension.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to page 87 of the
petition, which contains a property suit filed by Vaibhavi Singh, wherein, in paragraph 3 of the
plaint, it is admitted that the petitioner, Asha Singh, is the first legally wedded wife of Late Dileep
Kumar Singh.

9. In compliance with the order dated 11.07.2023 in the writ petition and the order dated
04.10.2023 passed in the Contempt Petition, the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi, passed
an order dated 02.11.2023, requiring the petitioner to submit a succession certificate. In the
aforesaid order, the District Basic Education Officer also mentioned that both Asha Singh and
Pooja Singh had produced succession certificates, each claiming to be the wife of Late Dileep
Kumar Singh. The Officer further noted that, in view of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, a second marriage is void if the legally wedded wife is still alive. The documents submitted
by the petitioner were also taken into consideration by the District Basic Education Officer while
passing the order dated 02.11.2023, which proved her to be the legally wedded wife; however, a
succession certificate is still required for the payment of the family pension.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Manno Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in 2014 (9) ADJ 701.
The relevant paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows:
4 All. Smt. Asha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1265
 "16. It is clear from the facts and rules, stated herein above, that the second marriage after
coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is null and void. The second wife is not
included within the definition of family, nomination if made in her favour would not defeat the
claim of the legally wedded wife to claim family pension as she falls within the definition of
family. Regulation 7 provides that family pension is not admissible to a person who is not a
member of the deceased official's family. Sub-clause (4) refers to nomination under sub-regulation
(5) which is exception to the general rule, Sub-clause 4(a)(i) provides that pension shall be paid to
the "eldest surviving widow", thus, the rules refer to two widows and the manner in which pension
is to be paid to them. In case, there is no nomination, the eldest widow shall receive pension and in
case of nomination the nominee shall receive pension. Regulations being subordinate legislation
cannot recognize second marriage which is null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act, thus in the
opinion of the Court, the petitioner is entitled to family pension as she falls within the definition of
family of the deceased employee. "

11. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Kiran Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 253. The relevant
paragraphs 16 and 18 are as under:-

 "16. In case of Chandra Kali Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others passed in Writ A No. 3288 of
2017 decided on 31.07.2019, Court has held that pension is to be disbursed as per provisions of
Rules, 1961. The Rules clearly states that only eligible persons as defined in definition of "family"
shall be entitled to receive family pension and member out of family member as defined in Rules,
1961 is not entitled for pension. Relevant paragraph of aforesaid judgment is quoted below; -

 "As regards, eligibility to family pension, the pension is to be disbursed as per the
provisions of the Rules, 1961. The Rules clearly state that only eligible person is entitled to receive
family pension but where pension awarded ceases to be payable on the death or marriage of the
recipient or for any other reason, it will be regranted to the persons next lower in the order
mentioned in sub-rule (4) of Rule 7. The Hindu second wife would not be eligible for family pension
as long as the first wife is alive and has not remarried. There is no provision in the Rules for
relinquishment of family pension in favour of another person. The eighth respondent would not fall
within the definition of ''family' of the employee. The sixth and seventh respondent being sons of the
deceased employees brother are also not family of the employee within the definition of ''family'
under the Rules, 1961."

 18. Therefore, after death, gratuity, pension and terminal benefits shall be paid strictly in
accordance with Rule 3(3), Rule 5(1) & Rule 6 of Rules, 1961 and any nomination made in service
book contrary to the Rules, 1961 cannot be accepted. Petitioner being legally wedded wife is fully
entitled for terminal benefits"

12. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Urmila Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, reported in Neutral Citation No.
2025:AHC:121667, where it was held that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife, is entitled
to the family pension.
1266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Relying upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rafat
Naaz and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in MANU/UP/5109/2024, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that once it is proved that the petitioner is the legally wedded
wife, no succession certificate is required for the payment of family pension.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents-BSA could not disputed the aforesaid facts.

15. From the arguments as placed by learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that
the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant. The same is evident
from the succession certificate issued by the concerned District Magistrate, which has not been
disputed.

16. The second marriage, after the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force, is void. The
second wife does not fall within the definition of 'family,' and any nomination in her favour cannot
override the legally wedded wife's right to family pension, as she qualifies as a family member.
Regulation 7 specifies that family pension is only payable to members of the deceased's family.
Sub-clause 4(a)(i) provides that the 'eldest surviving widow' is entitled to the pension, recognizing
the rights of two widows and the procedure for pension distribution. In the absence of a valid
nomination, the eldest widow receives the pension. As the second marriage is void under the Hindu
Marriage Act, the petitioner, as the legally wedded wife, is entitled to the family pension.

17. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner is the legally
wedded wife of late Dileep Kumar Singh, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled for the
family pension. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to immediately release the family pension
and other dues of late Dileep Kumar Singh in favour of the petitioner.

18. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1266
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 11875 of 2025

Preeti Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration