V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) 1. Perused the office report dated 18.03.2009 qua service on respondent no. 5. Office report indicates that neither acknowledgement nor un-served notice has been received back in the office as yet, as such service on said respondent is presumed to be sufficient.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition has been been field by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 26.07.2003 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, U.P. Police Headquarter U.P. at Allahabad rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension. Earlier matter had travelled up to this Court in the shape of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16747 of 1998 (Smt. Sudha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court on 21.04.2003 passed following order which is being quoted below: " It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of her husband on 23.07.1990 she was entitled to be paid family pension but the same is being wrongly denied to her merely on certain objections having being filed by one Smt. Hema claiming that she is the widow of late Satish Chandra Sharma. However, since there was a dispute, respondent no. 3 required the petitioner to obtain succession certificate from the competent court after which alone family pension could be paid to her. It has been submitted that accordingly the petitioner, after obtaining the succession certificate on 21.04.1995 from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moradabad (A copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition) filed the same counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 3, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi also gave opportunity to the said Smt. Hema to either obtain succession certificate or file objection to the succession certificate or file objection to the succession certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and obtain appropriate orders from the competent court but the same could neither been obtained nor filed by the said Smt. Hema before the respondents. It has also been categorically stated in paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit by the respondents, that the group insurance money of late Satish Chandra Sharma has already been released in favour of the petitioner on 02.08.1997 and thus it has been contended that the petitioner has been accepted as the legal heir of her late husband. In their counter affidavit, the respondents merely stated that since there was a dispute whether the petitioner or the said Smt. Hema was the widow and/or legal heir of the deceased Satish Chandra Sharma, the payment of family pension could not be made to either of them. An enquiry report regarding this was submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi which has been filed as annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that Smt. Hema was married to Satish Chandra Sharma, however, it is not disputed that the said Smt. Hema did not produce any succession certificate or any other proof before the respondent authorities to show that she was the legal heir of the deceased and was thus entitled to payment of pension along with the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has filed a copy of the order passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge in Misc. case no. 73 of 2000 filed by the said Smt. Hema for grant of succession certificate. By the said order dated 17.11.2000 the said Smt. Hema has withdrawn the case in view of the compromise which had entered into between the petitioner and Smt. Hema. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records prime-facie it appears that the dispute between the petitioner and Smt. Hema has come to an end after the withdrawal of her case for grant of succession certificate in her favour. However, since the said document has been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit thus giving no chance to the contesting respondents to verify the correctness of the same, I consider it appropriate to remit the matter to respondent no. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarter, Allahabad through Deputy Inspector General of Police to decide the case relating to the grant of family pension to the petitioner after verifying the correctness of the order dated 17.11.2000 filed as annexure RA-1 and also in the light of the observations made above. The said respondent no. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarter, Allahabad through Deputy Inspector General of Police shall decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with law by a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. With these directions, this writ petition is finally disposed." Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, as matter has been directed to be re considered, order impugned has been passed which is subject matter of challenge.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed and therein plea has been taken that signatures were got obtained by Smt. Hema by playing fraud upon her then pension has been released in her favour based on Government Order dated 24.08.1966. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein plea mentioned in the counter affidavit has been sought to be disputed and that of writ petition has been sought to be reiterated and even factum of marriage of Smt. Hema has been sought to be disputed.;