JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Vikas Budhwar, JJ. 1. The petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by declaring the Constitutional Validity of Rule 7¼3½ ¼Hk½ of the Government Order mRrj Áns'k 'kklu] foRr ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&3] lkŒ&3&1508@nl&2008&308&97 y[kuÅ fnukad 08-12-2008 of U.P. retirement benefit Rules 1967 as well as new Family Pension Scheme 1965 to declare the part of G.O. bearig sentence ^^vkfJr ekrk&firk vfookfgr@rykd'kqnk@fo/kok iq=h dh ikfjokfjd isa'ku thou i;ZUr feysxhA** to declare it ultra virus as against the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India as ultra virus. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.3.2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 upon the complaint no.40020121002680 preferred by the petitioner.” 2. We have heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. With the consent of the parties the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. Admittedly as per case set out by the petitioner in the present writ petition, his father late Madan Mohan (since deceased) was an employee of respondent no.2 Public Works Department (In short P.W.D.) who expired. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Vidya Devi was conferred with the benefit of family pension and she was continuously paid family pension till her death i.e. 18.12.2020. Consequent to the death of his mother, the petitioner is before this Court seeking relief for declaring the part of the Government Order being Clause 7(3) (kha) (gha) bearing No. lkŒ&3&1508@nl& 2008&308&97] fnukad 8-12-2008 to be violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India as it creates a discrimination between son/daughter (including widow daughter) married/remarried or on attainment of age of 25 years vis-a-vis the dependent father, mother, unmarried/divorcee/widow daughter, who have been made entitled to life time family pension. 4. The Government Order No. lkŒ&3&1508@nl&2008&308& 97] fnukad 8-12-2008 has been filed as annexure-1 at page 13 of the paper book. 4. The Government Order No. lkŒ&3&1508@nl&2008&308& 97] fnukad 8-12-2008 has been filed as annexure-1 at page 13 of the paper book. Its alleged offending Clause 7(3) (gha) is quoted below:- 7¼3½ ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh vuqeU;rk gsrq ifjokj dks fuEu Ádkj oxhZd`r fd;k tk;sxkA oxZ&1 ¼d½ fo/kok@fo/kqj] vtUe vFkok iquZfookg] tks Hkh igys gksA ¼[k½ iq=@iq=h ¼fo/kok iq=h lfgr½ dks fookg@iquZfookg vFkok 25 o"kZ dh vk;q rd vFkok thfodksiktZu dh frfFk] tks Hkh igys gks] rdA oxZ&2 ¼x½ vfookfgr@fo/kok@rykd'kqnk iq=h] tks mijksDr oxZ&1 ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS] dks fookg@iquZfookg rd vFkok thfodksiktZu dh frfFk vFkok e`R;q dh frfFk rd tks Hkh igys gksA ¼Ä½ ,sls ekrk&firk tks ljdkjh lsod ij mlds thoudky esa iw.kZr% vkfJr jgs gks rFkk e`r ljdkjh lsod us vius ihNs dksbZ fo/kok@fo/kqj vFkok cPps ugha gksrh gSA vkfJr ekrk&firk vfookfgr@rykd'kqnk@fo/kok iq=h dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku thou i;ZUr feysxhA 5. After going through the pleadings and arguments canvassed by the petitioner and the Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents No. 1 to 3, it is clear that the State Government has issued Government Order lkŒ&3&1508@ nl&2008&308&97] fnukad 8-12-2008 wherein provisions relating to the grant of family pension has been provided classifying the dependents, who are conferred with the benefit of family pension. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government Order dated 8.12.2008, as referred to above, creates discrimination and it is in violation of Article 15 of the Constitution of India as the benefit of life time family pension has been made admissible to dependents i.e. mother, father, unmarried/divorcee daughter/widow daughter but the same has been denied to son/daughter (inclusive of widow daughter) married/remarried or attainment of age of 25 years or till survival whichever is earlier. 7. In nutshell, what is being sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the son of the deceased employee is entitled to the benefit of family pension for life time and same cannot be restricted till the attainment of the age of 25 years. 8. 7. In nutshell, what is being sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the son of the deceased employee is entitled to the benefit of family pension for life time and same cannot be restricted till the attainment of the age of 25 years. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has argued that the Government Order dated 8.12.2008, as referred to above, in so far as it pertains to Clause-7(3) as a whole, is intra vires and it needs no interference as no individual has an unfettered right to get family pension till his death as the same is to be governed by the statutory enactments issued from time to time and in vogue. 9. Learned Standing Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court at page 46 of the paper book being an order dated 16.3.2021 which has also been challenged whereby the claim set up by the petitioner for grant of life time family pension has been denied on the ground that the petitioner at the time of passing of the order dated 16.3.2021 was aged about 45 years. 10. Having gone through the pleadings and the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that the grant of family pension is to be regulated and governed by the statutory enactments. So far as Government Order dated 8.12.2008 is concerned, it admittedly provides that in case of a son/daughter (including widow daughter) after marriage/remarriage, they are entitled to grant of family pension till attaining the age of 25 years or till survival whichever is earlier. They cannot be placed on same footing vis-a-vis dependents being father, mother, unmarried daughter/widow daughter, as they form a separate class and merely because they are being granted the benefit of life time family pension that cannot be a ground to grant life time family pension to the petitioner. 11. The basic idea of grant of life time family pension is to provide immediate relief to the widow and children by way of compensation. 12. As a matter of fact, entitlement of life time family pension is neither an unfettered nor a fundamental right, as the same is governed by the statutory enactments so issued from time to time and in vogue. 13. 12. As a matter of fact, entitlement of life time family pension is neither an unfettered nor a fundamental right, as the same is governed by the statutory enactments so issued from time to time and in vogue. 13. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards paragraph 11 of the writ petition which reads as under:- “11. That the provisions of Pension Scheme is discriminatory on the ground of Sex (gender) as only unmarried daughter is entitled to get the family pension life time on other hand there is discrimination with male who are also unmarried and depend upon the Family pension which is against the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.” 14. Thus, the challenge made to the offending provisions of the Government Order dated 8.12.2008 is with regard to the fact that the same is in violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India as the same is discriminatory on the ground of Sex (gender) that only unmarried daughter is entitled to get life time family pension. On the other hand, the petitioner being male and also unmarried and dependent upon the family pension, is being denied family pension after his attainment of age of 25 years. 15. Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India is reproduced herein-under:- “15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth-(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.” 16. Though the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive but the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold as the petitioner being the son of the dependent forms a different class vis-a-vis the father, mother, married/divorcee/widow daughter. The Rule enacting authority have themselves protected interest of the son of the dependent of a deceased employee by granting benefit of family pension till the attainment of 25 years. 17. The Rule enacting authority have themselves protected interest of the son of the dependent of a deceased employee by granting benefit of family pension till the attainment of 25 years. 17. The logic behind the grant of family pension to a male (son) till the age of 25 years or till his survival whichever is earlier, is just in order to provide him financial support by way of compensation for untimely death of the deceased employee and to provide an environment so as to sustain him during interregnum period when they become major but also get educated to seek employment in order to excel in life. 18. Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India is not attracted in the present case and there is no violation of the same as the Government Order dated 8.12.2008 does not discriminate between same class of persons. Instead it protects interest of the petitioner to get family pension till the age of 25 years. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the issue with regard to the entitlement of family pension in the case of Smt. Violet Issac and others Vs. Union of India and others 1991(62) FLR and observed as under:- “The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident fund, family pension and other allowances, but this Court while issuing notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension. We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only. Family Pension Rules, 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway Employee. Rule 801 provides that family pension shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no widow/widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years, and unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married, which ever is earlier. The Rules do not provide for payment of family pension to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for payment of family pension to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monitory benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee as no title to it.” 20. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani and others (2016) 16 SCC 229 (in para 17) has observed, as under:- 17. It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is to be given under the provisions of the Scheme and therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension as per the Scheme would get it. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in the case of Violet Issaac (Smt.) v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725 and after considering the relevant provisions, this Court came to the conclusion that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his Will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same. In the instant case, as per the provisions of the Scheme, the appellant widow is the only family member who is entitled to the pension and therefore, the respondent mother would not get any right in the pension. Of course, it cannot be disputed that if there are other assets left by late Shri Yash Pal, the respondent mother would get 50% share, if late Shri Yash Pal had not prepared any Will and it appears that late Shri Yash Pal had died intestate and no Will had been executed by him. 21. The law so enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Violet Issac and Nitu (Supra) clearly mandates that no other person except those designated under the Rules/Scheme are entitled to receive family pension. 22. 21. The law so enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Violet Issac and Nitu (Supra) clearly mandates that no other person except those designated under the Rules/Scheme are entitled to receive family pension. 22. Thus, the net logical conclusion which emerges from the proposition of law as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that nobody has right to receive family pension except otherwise provided by the Rules and the Schemes in that regard. 23. The Apex Court in the case of Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 2 SCC 772 had the occasion to consider the issue relating to valid classification and held as under:- “33.At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification (see, State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 ). A valid classification is based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes, the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment, over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective. And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be summarized as, a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Whenever a cut off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification (or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied.” 24. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal ground so as to assail the Government Order dated 8.12.2008 as reproduced herein above. Classification made in the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 is a valid classification founded on an intelligible differentia which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. 25. There is another ground for not entertaining present writ petition i.e. the date-of-birth of the petitioner is 1.1.1975. Classification made in the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 is a valid classification founded on an intelligible differentia which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. 25. There is another ground for not entertaining present writ petition i.e. the date-of-birth of the petitioner is 1.1.1975. At the time of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner as per the affidavit is 46 years. The petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition has stated as under:- “That the petitioner was completely depend upon the Family Pension of his mother and also did not get married after the death of his father and now his marital status is bachelor.” 26. There is nothing on record to suggest as to what is the educational qualification of the petitioner and whether he is working anywhere or not. It is hardly inconceivable that a person (male) who is aged about 46 years is not working anywhere to sustain himself and rather dependent upon the family pension of the deceased (mother). 27. In the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop, the prayer made by the petitioner for declaration of the offending provisions of the Government Order being violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India as well as quashing of the order dated 16.3.2021 denying family pension to the petitioner, is rejected. 28. No other points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, petition fails and accordingly is hereby dismissed.