Allahabad HC Upholds Widow’s Right to Pension Over Adult Son Named by Deceased

The Allahabad High Court has held that a legally wedded wife is entitled to family pension even if the deceased husband omitted her name in official pension records and instead nominated their adult son. Court ruled that such an omission does not override the legal framework which prioritizes the spouse as the rightful beneficiary.

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, allowing the writ petition filed by Urmila Singh, quashed the September 2020 order passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur, which had rejected her claim for family pension on technical grounds.

The petitioner is the widow of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, an Assistant Teacher in a Basic School run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, who retired in March 2016 and passed away in November 2019. Following his death, Urmila Singh applied for family pension. However, her claim was turned down as her name and photograph were not included in the pension documents submitted by her husband during his lifetime. Instead, the name of their son, Atul Kumar Singh, aged 34 at the time of death, was recorded as the nominee.

Court noted that as per the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, a legally wedded spouse holds a statutory right to receive family pension. It observed that the scheme of the rules allows nomination only among eligible family members, and in the absence of eligibility, such nomination cannot override the law. Since the son was above the age threshold and presumably earning, he was ineligible under Rule 7(4), which prioritizes the surviving widow over adult children.

Court accepted documentary evidence establishing the marital relationship, including a Gram Pradhan’s certificate, a family court judgment from 2015 affirming the marriage, and a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC which had directed Prabhu Narayan Singh to pay the petitioner Rs 8,000 monthly. These, the court held, clearly demonstrated that Urmila Singh was the lawful wife of the deceased.

The High Court emphasized that family pension is not a private asset of the deceased that can be distributed as per his wishes, but a statutory right conferred upon eligible family members. It cited with approval a 2025 Kerala High Court ruling in Union of India v. Sathikumari Amma, which had ruled that family pension cannot be revoked or denied to a legally wedded spouse, regardless of the declarations or omissions made by the deceased employee.

“The petitioner is entitled for family pension,” court stated, adding that her only means of sustenance after her husband’s death was the pension benefit, which had been wrongly denied. It was observed that the rejection was based on a “non-application of mind” and not in line with the statutory rules.

Setting aside the impugned rejection order, the court directed the Finance and Accounts Officer to release the family pension in favour of Urmila Singh forthwith. 

Case Title: Urmila Singh vs State of UP and 4 Others

Judgment Date: July 24, 2025

Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan