Unmarried Sister Of Deceased UP Employee Wins Family Pension As Allahabad HC Says Government Order Cannot Override Rules

In brief

The question

1. Whether an unmarried sister falls within the definition of “family” under Rule 3(v) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, for the purpose of family pension.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 5 December 2025.

It also directed

It directed the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to order payment of family pension and arrears, with interest at 6% per annum from 15 May 2024—the date of the employee’s death—until payment.

The direction was to be complied with within six weeks of production or receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

01Facts

The petitioner, the unmarried sister of a deceased government employee, sought family pension.

¶ 1

Her brother had nominated her in his service book.

The State rejected her claim by order dated 5 December 2025, relying on a Government Order dated 23 December 2016, under which she was not treated as a member of the deceased employee’s family.

¶ 1

The petitioner relied on Rule 3(v) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, which includes unmarried and widowed sisters within the definition of “family”.

¶ 2

The State’s counter-affidavit did not dispute that she was unmarried or that the Government Order could not override the statutory Rules.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether an unmarried sister falls within the definition of “family” under Rule 3(v) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, for the purpose of family pension.

¶ 2–3

ii.2. Whether the Government Order dated 23 December 2016 could exclude the petitioner from entitlement to family pension where the statutory Rules included unmarried sisters.

¶ 1, 5–9

03Law Applied

Rule 3(v) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 defines “family” to include unmarried and widowed sisters.

¶ 2

The Court also relied on the principle that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are statutory rules and cannot be overridden, amended, or replaced by executive instructions; until amended, they remain in force.

¶ 4–9

In support, it cited Union of India v. S.S. Soma Sundaram Vishwanath, Paluru Ram Krishnaiah v. Union of India, K. Kuppusamy v. State of T.N., B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, and Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa.

¶ 5–9

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s status as the deceased employee’s unmarried sister was not disputed, and Rule 3(v) expressly included unmarried sisters within “family”.

¶ 2–3

The Court held that the Government Order could not narrow or override the statutory Rules, which could be changed only through the legally prescribed process.

¶ 4–9

Accordingly, rejection of the petitioner’s claim solely on the basis of the Government Order was unsustainable.

¶ 1, 10