# Urmila Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 355
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5545 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/urmila-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53550
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

is otherwise; correctness of order dated
21.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 -
Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education,
Mirzapur.
Headnotes
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961-Rules
3, 6, 7- petitioner is legally wedded wife of the
deceased government servant- nomination was
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in favor of the elder son -who was nearly 32
years of age at the time of death of his fatherthe age, and the fact that the son might have
been earning at that stage makes him ineligible
for the family pension- the petitioner is legally
wedded wife -has no other source of her
livelihood-petitioner
is
entitled
for
family
pension. W.P. allowed.
Held: The petitioner is legally wedded wife of
late Prabhu Narayan Singh who has no other
source of her livelihood, this Court finds that the
petitioner is entitled for family pension. (E-9)
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Sathikumari Amma2025 SCC
OnLine Ker 539: 2025: KER:2184
List of Acts
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961
List of Keywords
family pension; 'family' includes spouse, wife or
husband; sons (including step and adopted),
unmarried and widowed daughters (including
step and adopted), brothers below the age of
18 years; unmarried and widowed sisters
(including
step-brothers
and
step-sisters);
father, mother, married daughters (including
step-daughters) and children of pre-deceased
son; nomination.
Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioner :-Jitendra Prasad, Niraj
Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jay Ram
Pandey

## Text

7 All. Urmila Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
their tenure also stood notionally extended
so far as application of maternity benefits
under the 1961 Act was concerned.

10. Our independent analysis of
the provisions of the 1961 Act does not lead
to an interpretation that the maternity
benefits cannot survive or go beyond the
duration of employment of the applicant
thereof. The expression employed in the
legislation is maternity benefits [in Section
2(h)] and not leave. Section 5(2) of the
statute, which we have quoted above,
stipulates the conditions on the fulfilment of
which such benefits would accrue. Section
5(3) lays down the maximum period for
which such benefits could be granted. The
last proviso to Section 5(3) makes the
benefits applicable even in a case where
the applicant woman dies after delivery
of the child, for the entire period she
would have been otherwise entitled to.
Further, there is an embargo on the
employer from dismissing or discharging
a woman who absents herself from work
in accordance with the provisions of the
Act during her absence. This embargo
has been imposed under Section 12(2)(a)
of the Act. The expression "discharge" is
of wide import, and it would include
"discharge
on
conclusion
of
the
contractual period". Further, by virtue
of operation of Section 27, the Act
overrides any agreement or contract of
service found inconsistent with the 1961
Act."

19. In view of discussions made
hereinabove, Clause 7 of letter dated
03.09.2021 is hereby held not only to be
unconstitutional but also against provisions
of the Act of 1961. The opposite parties are
hereby directed not to incorporate any such
clause in any engagement on contractual
basis even in future.

20. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite
parties
to
ensure
maternity
benefits to petitioner in accordance with
Sections 5, 8 and 10 of the Act of 1961
within a period of six weeks from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before the concerned authority.

21. Resultantly, petition succeeds and
is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 5545 of 2021

Urmila Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jitendra Prasad, Niraj Kumar Singh, Rajesh
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jay Ram Pandey

Issue for consideration
Eligibility of wife for family pension if nomination
is otherwise; correctness of order dated
21.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 -
Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education,
Mirzapur.
Headnotes
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961-Rules
3, 6, 7- petitioner is legally wedded wife of the
deceased government servant- nomination was
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in favor of the elder son -who was nearly 32
years of age at the time of death of his fatherthe age, and the fact that the son might have
been earning at that stage makes him ineligible
for the family pension- the petitioner is legally
wedded wife -has no other source of her
livelihood-petitioner
is
entitled
for
family
pension. W.P. allowed.
Held: The petitioner is legally wedded wife of
late Prabhu Narayan Singh who has no other
source of her livelihood, this Court finds that the
petitioner is entitled for family pension. (E-9)
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Sathikumari Amma2025 SCC
OnLine Ker 539: 2025: KER:2184
List of Acts
U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961
List of Keywords
family pension; 'family' includes spouse, wife or
husband; sons (including step and adopted),
unmarried and widowed daughters (including
step and adopted), brothers below the age of
18 years; unmarried and widowed sisters
(including
step-brothers
and
step-sisters);
father, mother, married daughters (including
step-daughters) and children of pre-deceased
son; nomination.
Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioner :-Jitendra Prasad, Niraj
Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jay Ram
Pandey

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

1. The petitioner has preferred this
writ petition challenging an order dated
21.09.2020 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 31.03.2016, 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
dated
21.09.2020 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 Section 125 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner has been granted maintenance of
Rs. 8,000/- per month which proves that
she is the wife of late Prabhu Narayan
Singh, hence she is entitled for family
pension.
7 All. Urmila Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that in the special circumstances,
where it is an admitted fact that the petitioner
is wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh and the
son, who was 34 years old at the time of
death of Prabhu Narayan Singh, was not
entitled for family pension, the respondent
authorities ought to have verified the fact,
which has already been certified by the Gram
Pradhan and the judgement dated 20.08.2015
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mirzapur in Application No. 404 of 2014,
Smt. Urmila Singh v. Prabhu Narayan Singh,
and should have released the family pension
in favour of the petitioner. However, the
respondent authority without taking note of
the said relevant material, has proceeded to
reject the petitioner's claim sans application
of mind.

5. Placing reliance upon the Pension
Payment Rules, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner, being
the wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, is
entitled for pension.

6. Learned counsel for the Basic
Education Department i.e. respondent nos.
2, 3 & 4, submits that there is no illegality
or infirmity in the order impugned as the
deceased government servant has not
mentioned name of the petitioner in his
application requesting for pension. In PartIII of the pension application, name of Atul
Kumar Singh has been mentioned as the
applicant for family pension, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for any such claim
being sought for in the writ petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Sunil
Kumar
Dubey,
learned
counsel
for
respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, and perused the
record.

8. The family pension is governed by
the provisions of the Civil Service
Regulations and the U.P. Retirement
Benefit Rules, 19611. 'Family' is defined
under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3, which reads
thus:

"(3)
"Family"
means
the
following relatives of an officer:

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

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

(iii) sons (including step-children
and adopted children)

(iv) unmarried and widowed
daughters. (Including 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 pre-deceased son"

9. Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961 provides
for nomination of one or more persons, and
right to receive any gratuity that may be
sanctioned. The proviso clarifies that at the
time of making nomination if the officer
has a family, the nomination shall not be in
favour of any person other than one or
more members of the family. Rule 6 is
extracted:
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"6.
Nomination.
-
(1)
A
Government Servant shall, as soon as he
acquires or if he already holds a lien on a
permanent pensionable right to receive any
grauity that may be sanctioned under subrule (2) or sub-rule (3) of rule 5 and
gratuity which after becoming admissible
to him under sub-rule (1) of that rule is not
paid to him before death :

Provided that if at the time of
marking the Nomination the officer has a
family, the nomination shall not be in
favour of any person other than one or
more of the members of the family."

10. Rule 7 of Part-III of the Rules,
1961 provides that family pension may be
granted to the family of an officer who
dies, whether after retirement or while still
in service after completion of not less than
twenty years' qualifying service. Sub-Rule
(4) of Rule 7 provides who shall be entitled
to receive the pension in the event the
deceased employee had two wives. Subrule (4) is extracted below:

(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 male officer or to the
husband, if the deceased was a female
officer;

(ii) failing the widow or husband,
as the case may be, 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;

(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 "eldest
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."

11. From the arguments as placed by
learned counsel for the parties, it is not
disputed that the petitioner is legally wedded
wife of the deceased government servant. The
same is evident from the certificate as issued
by by the concerned Gram Pradhan and the
judgement dated 20.08.2015 passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in
Application No. 404 of 2014, Smt. Urmila
Singh v. Prabhu Narayan Singh, and the same
is not disputed.
7 All. Urmila Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359

12. A bare perusal of the Rules, 1961
is indicative of the fact that the definition
of 'family' includes spouse, wife or
husband, as the case may be, sons
(including step and adopted), unmarried
and widowed daughters (including step and
adopted), brothers below the age of 18
years and unmarried and widowed sisters
(including step-brothers and step-sisters),
father,
mother,
married
daughters
(including step-daughters) and children of
pre-deceased son.

13. In the present case, the petitioner is
legally wedded wife of the deceased
government servant. Sub-rule (5) of Rule-6
of the Rules, 1961 requires government
servants to make a nomination indicating
the order, in which pension, sanctioned,
would be payable to the members of
their family. Provided the nominee 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 sub-rule (3) of Rule-7 of
the Rules, 1961. Thus, the scheme of
the Rules, 1961 provides that in case a
government servant leaves behind any
of the family members, there should be
a nomination in favour of them and the
pension would accordingly be payable,
provided the nominee is not ineligible
on the date, on which the pension
became payable to her in sub-rule (3) of
Rules-7.

14. In the present case, the nomination
was in favour of the elder son who was
nearly 32 years of age at the time of death
of his father, therefore, it was the petitioner
who was legally wedded wife, and was
entitled for the family pension. The age,
and the fact that the son might have been
earning at that stage makes him ineligible
for the family pension.

15. This Court feels that the family
pension is a statutory right of a wife under
the Rules, 1961. The aforesaid fact has
been affirmed by Kerala High Court in the
case of Union of India v. Sathikumari
Amma2, wherein the Court held that family
pension is not a part of employee's estate
and cannot be revoked via any declaration
or nomination by the deceased. It further
observed that the employee cannot exclude
legally wedded spouse from receiving
pension, such departure is constitutionally
invalid.

16. It is now a well-settled legal
principle, as affirmed by the Kerala High
Court in S. Sathikumari Amma (supra),
that
family
pension
is
a
statutory
entitlement of the legally wedded spouse
and cannot be revoked or excluded by any
declaration, nomination or action of the
deceased employee.

17. This Court finds that admittedly
the petitioner was the wife of late Prabhu
Narayan Singh. Said fact is also proved
from the judgement dated 20.08.2015
passed by Family Court in Application No.
404 of 2014, Smt. Urmila Singh v. Prabhu
Narayan Singh. The ground taken in the
maintenance application shows that there
were
some
differences
between
the
applicant and her husband, therefore, she
was residing at her parental place and as
soon as she came to know about the death
of her husband, she moved an application
mentioning therein the details of family. In
the application for family pension, the date
of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as
01.01.1962, date of birth of Atul Kumar is
20.07.1985
and
that
of
Sandeep
is
05.12.1987. Accordingly, at the time of
death of petitioner's husband, Atul Kumar
Singh, whose name was mentioned in
pension papers, was nearly 34 years old
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and another son was 32 years old. The
petitioner not being aware of the conduct of
her husband, who nominated one of his
sons, for family pension as required under
law, had no other remedy but to move an
application, to which proper decision
should have been taken, keeping in mind
the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1961.
However, the respondent authority has
rejected the application only on one ground
that name of the petitioner was not
mentioned in pension papers as required
under law.

18. From the record, it is evident that
the petitioner was getting Rs. 8,000/- per
month from her husband to maintain
herself, however, after his death, when she
was 62 years old, there was nothing to
maintain herself except family pension,
therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.

19. This Court feels that the family
pension is statutory and beyond the
employee's
unilateral
control.
Family
pension
is
recognized
as
a
legal
entitlement, not charity.

20.
Having
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, and in view of the admitted fact
that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of
late Prabhu Narayan Singh who has no
other source of her livelihood, this Court
finds that the petitioner is entitled for
family pension. Thus, the impugned order
dated
21.09.2020
is
quashed.
The
respondent no. 3 is directed to release
family pension in favour of the petitioner,
forthwith.

21. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.

22. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 360
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 5667 of 2015

Sandhya Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satya Prakash Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ajay
Kumar,
C.S.C.,
Nisheeth
Yadav,
Nishith Yadav

Issue for consideration
Whether qualification of the petitioner as
bachelor in Physiotherapy, decree of
which has been conferred by the State
Integral University, Lucknow to meet
qualification prescribed under the Service
Rules, 2012. (Para 17)

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Qualification
-
Permission to participate - U.P. Food
Safety
and
Drug
Administration
Department (Food Safety Cadre) (Group-
'A','B', and 'C') Service Rules, 2012: Rule
8; Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
Section 2-f - Providing equivalence to
qualification prescribed in the rules is
essentially a job of experts in the field and
for the State Government to formulate on
its own volition with regard to such
equivalence. (Para 23)

B. Selection and appointment should be
made strictly in terms of advertisement
and recruitment rules issued. The question
as to whether particular post- graduate decree
would be equivalent to the one prescribed under