Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for both the parties agree that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court of Hon'ble single Judge and Division Bench and as such it may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Sri. D.C. Tripathi, who has accepted notice on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3. Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to command the Respondents to pay arrears and revised family pension.
(3.) A similar controversy came up before this Court in Smt. Qamar Jahan v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 (2) ESC 977 (All) and by a detailed judgment this Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions: 20. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to revise and fix family pension of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Moti Lal Agarwal (supra) within a period of four months and continue to pay current the amount as determined above as and when it falls due. The Petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears of family pension at the rate of 8% with effect from 29.9.2006, i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition till the said amount is paid. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rupees ten thousand payable by Respondents No. 2 and 3.;