WPSS No.1481 of 2011 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Shri Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The husband of the petitioner was employed as Constable in P.A.C. and was lastly posted at 40th Battalion, P.A.C. Haridwar. He took voluntary retirement from his services on 01.04.1999. Before the retirement of Shri Bachan Das, his wife died in the year 1998. At the time of his retirement, he had two daughters. During his service period, before his retirement, he entered the name of his daughters, as his nominee for the purpose of Family Pension. His both daughters got married in the year 2001 & 2002, respectively. Thereafter, late Bachan Das got married with the petitioner, as per Hindu rite. After his marriage with the petitioner, late Bachan Das filed an application along with affidavit before the respondents on 19.01.2007, requesting the respondent no.2 that since he has married with the petitioner, therefore, in the service record, the name of the petitioner be entered for the purpose of Family Pension. On the said application of the petitioner, Commandant, 40th Battalion, P.A.C. Haridwar wrote a letter to the Senior Treasury Officer, Uttarkashi on 23rd February, 2007, requesting him to take appropriate action at his level on the said application of late Bachan Das. The Commandant, 40th Battalion, P.A.C. Haridwar wrote another letter to the Senior Treasury Officer, Uttarkashi, requesting him to take decision in the matter and inform him, accordingly. But nothing was done by the respondents and on 28.01.2009, the husband of the petitioner died. After the death of her husband, the petitioner moved an application on 31.01.2009, requesting the respondents to sanction Family Pension to the petitioner. On the said application, the respondent no.2 i.e. Commandant, 40th Battalion, P.A.C. Haridwar again requested the Finance Controller, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad to do the needful in the matter. On 01.01.2010, the Commandant sent a letter to the petitioner asking her to submit certain documents such as marriage certificate, details of children and their age and death certificate of her husband, so that Family Pension be sanctioned. The petitioner replied his letter and submitted all the requisite documents as required through letter-dated 01.01.2010. When the Family Pension was not granted to the petitioner, she moved an application on 4th May, 2010, requesting that the Family Pension may be granted to her. Thereafter, petitioner also repeatedly requested the respondents for sanction of Family Pension in her favour, but when Family Pension was not sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, she filed the present writ petition. The respondent no.2 filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted by the respondents that husband of the petitioner submitted an application during his lifetime, requesting the respondent no.2 to enter the name of the petitioner in his service record. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that husband of the petitioner also prayed in his application for recording the name of the petitioner in the pension papers and other related records, as his successor. But before final action could be taken, the husband of the petitioner died. In the counter affidavit, it is also mentioned that on the application of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi got conducted an inquiry by the Tehsildar, Bhatwari. The Prabhari Adhikari submitted his report mentioning therein that late Bachan Das, after his retirement, got married with the petitioner with Hindu ritual and out of the wedlock four children, namely, Km. Aanchal, Km. Asha, Km. Tamanna and Master Bardan was born. This Inquiry Report is annexed as Annexure No. C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2. But in the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 took a ground that since the petitioner has not submitted succession certificate, the Family Pension could not be sanctioned in her favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an illiterate lady having no independent means for her livelihood and her four children. The husband of the petitioner was only breadwinner of the family and after the death of only breadwinner, the family is suffering from grave financial scarcity. He further submitted that award of pension is not bounty from employer or an act of charity. It is the indefeasible right of employee and after his death, right of his dependants and family members. He argued that the action of the respondents by not granting Family Pension to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and illegal. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In the record, I found a report submitted by the Prabhari Adhikari to the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi, in which it is mentioned that after about one year of his retirement, late Bachan das married with the petitioner. After marriage, four children were born, who are minor. Thus, when the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi, has already conducted the inquiry in the matter, there is no justification in asking the petitioner to submit a succession certificate. By asking so, the respondents are harassing the petitioner unnecessarily. Consequently, I allow the writ petition and I direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Family Pension within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Respondents are also directed to make payment of arrears of Family Pension to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of sanction of Family Pension to the petitioner. Stay Application (CLMA No.11359 of 2011) and Impleadment Application (CLMA No.13008 of 2011) also stand disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 28.12.2011