Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the sixth, seventh and eighth respondent.
(2.) The husband of the petitioner, Sri Baijnath Gupta was appointed Assistant Teacher in an Intermediate Institution in 1972, he retired on 30 June 2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. He, however, died on 26 November 2015, leaving behind his sole legal heir i.e. petitioner. It appears that a dispute arose between the petitioner and other claimants i.e. sixth, seventh and eighth respondent claiming right and title to the movable and immovable property of the petitioner, including, family pension. The sixth and seventh respondent claim to be the nephew, sons of the elder brother of the deceased/employee, whereas, eighth respondent Smt. Gayatri Devi claims to be the second wife of Baijnath Gupta.
(3.) Family pension of the petitioner was not released due to the dispute, inter se, parties. Aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition bearing Writ-A No. 46447 of 2016 (Chandra Kali vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) which was disposed of directing the fifth respondent Senior Treasury Officer, Banda, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to her entitlement of family pension. Pursuant thereof, by the impugned order dated 5 December 2016, the fifth respondent declined to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner due to the pending litigations, inter se, contesting parties in various forums including this Court and the Civil Court.;