Pramila Devi vs The Union of India

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10494 of 2025
======================================================
Pramila Devi W/o Awadhesh Mishra, Resident of village- Lao, P.S. - Tekari,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director General Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector Central Reserve Police Force,
Patna.
4. The Commandant 224 B N (VIP) Central Reserve Police Force, Patna.
5. Soni Kumari Pathak, D/o Haridawar Pathak and W/o Ashutosh Kumar
Mishra, Resident of Sai Road No. 2 Mango Jamshedpur, District- East
Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Surya Narayan Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-09-2026
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Surya Narayan
Roy, learned counsel for the Respondent no.5.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus the respondent to
grant the Family Pension to the Petitioner. The petitioner is
mother of deceased Employee who died on duty, therefore, the
respondent to release the petitioner's Family pension
including other dues which is admissible under the law along
with appropriate interest up to the date of releasing the
Pension.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10494 of 2025 dt.16-09-2026
2/6
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus restraining the
respondent No.5 to not receive the Family Pension and other
dues which is admissible under the law of deceased employee
namely Ashutosh Kumar Mishra who died on 8.4.2025 on
duty.
(iii) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to
which the petitioners may be found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of this case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that in view of the admitted position that
the petitioner is the mother of the deceased employee and the
said fact has not been disputed by the respondents. He further
submitted that in view of the specific information, as contained
in paragraph no. 29 of the counter affidavit, the Risk Fund Final
Payment in respect of Late Ashutosh Kumar Mishra has been
sanctioned in favour of Awadesh Mishra and Smt. Pramila Devi
(parents of the deceased employee) at the rate of Rs.3,12,500/-
each (total Rs.6,25,000/-), vide IGP, VS Wing Dte. Sanction
Order No. R.F.01/2025-26-V.S.-Acct. dated 10.06.2025. As
such, the petitioner, namely, Smt. Pramila Devi, being the
mother of the deceased employee, is entitled to family pension
in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union
of India refers to Rule 81(2)(a)(i), (Chapter X) of the Central

Patna High Court CWJC No.10494 of 2025 dt.16-09-2026
3/6
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and submits that the said
provision provides for grant of family pension under Rule 54 to
the widow or widower of a deceased government employee.
5. In the present case, the petitioner, namely, Smt.
Pramila Devi, is the mother of the deceased employee. One Soni
Kumari Pathak has claimed herself to be the legally wedded
wife of Late Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, who died on 08.04.2025
while serving as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF). Her name also reflects in the Pension Payment Order
(PPO). In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for
grant of family pension can not be sustained.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased
employee has two children, namely, Aditi Mishra (daughter) and
Aditya Raj Mishra (son) born out of the wedlock of the
deceased employee with respondent no. 5 (Soni Kumari
Pathak). He further submits that the biological daughter and son
of the deceased employee are entitled to the pensionary benefits
admissible to them, which, however, have not yet been paid to
any of the members of the family. In the aforesaid
circumstances, learned counsel submits that the reliefs as sought
for in the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, learned counsel, has

Patna High Court CWJC No.10494 of 2025 dt.16-09-2026
4/6
tendered his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5 (Soni
Kumari Pathak), who claims to be the wife of the deceased
employee. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the
admitted position and the information as contained in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India,
respondent no. 5 is entitled to family pension as she is the
legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. He further
submits that the biological son and daughter of the deceased
employee are also entitled to the pensionary benefits admissible
to them, which have not yet been disbursed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings, as well as, the
materials brought on record, it emerges that the deceased
employee, namely, Late Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, while serving
as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), died
on 08.04.2025. Respondent no. 5 (Soni Kumari Pathak), claims
to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. At the
same time, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Union of India, it appears that one Divya Kumari is the first
wife of the deceased employee and she has furnished her no-
objection in favour of respondent no. 5 for grant of family
pension, stating that she has no children. The counter affidavit

Patna High Court CWJC No.10494 of 2025 dt.16-09-2026
5/6
further refers to the marriage of the deceased employee with
respondent no. 5, which is supported by a marriage certificate
issued by Arya Samaj, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered view that it would be premature,
in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to record any definitive finding
as to the entitlement of the petitioner, who is the mother of the
deceased employee, particularly when there is a dispute
regarding the status and entitlement of the two persons claiming
to be the first and second wives of the deceased employee. Such
disputed questions relating to marital status and consequential
entitlement are matters, which may appropriately be adjudicated
by a competent civil court on the basis of evidence.
10. It is, however, made clear that the two biological
children of the deceased employee, namely, Aditi Mishra and
Aditya Raj Mishra, whose biological mother is respondent no. 5,
are entitled to the pensionary benefits admissible to them in
accordance with law, subject to the applicable statutory
provisions.
11. Accordingly, the information as contained in
paragraph no. 29 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Union of India is required to be re-looked by the competent

Patna High Court CWJC No.10494 of 2025 dt.16-09-2026
6/6
authority, particularly with regard to the entitlement and
disbursement of the pensionary benefits payable to the two
biological children of the deceased employee, so that their
respective lawful shares, as admissible under the applicable
rules, may be paid. In case, any party is aggrieved in any
manner, they are free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance
with law.
12. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.09.2026
Transmission Date 17.09.2026