JUDGMENT Brij Raj Singh, J. Heard Shri Narsingh Narain Lal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of refusal to grant family pension to the petitioner contained in the letter dated 21.06.2018 issued by the opposite party no. 2 Maha Lekhakaar (Lekha and Haqdaari) II Uttar Pradesh Allahabad, address to opposite party no. 3 the Chief Medical Officer, Sitapur contained in Annexure no.8 ; (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties particularly opposite party no. 2 to grant of family pension to the petitioner taking the date of divorce to be 04.09.2013 contained in plaint of Regular Suit No.738/15, deed of compromise and order dated 12.09.2015 of the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow respectively contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 to this writ petition." 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that mother of the petitioner died on 05.02.2015 and it has been submitted that petitioner was divorced by her husband on 04.09.2013 by way of mutual consent as per Muslim Personal Law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Government order dated 01.07.2014, the Petitioner is entitled for the pension because she is a divorcee. The judgment of Madras High Court C.R.P. (NPD) 161 of 2021 dated 21.04.2021 reported in AIR Online 2021 Mad 359 is relied. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has taken stand that as per para 4 the Government order dated 01.07.2014, it is provided that the divorced daughter will be entitled for pension in case the daughter was divorced till the date when the employee died. It has further been submitted that decree of divorce has been obtained by the Petitioner on 12.09.2015, which is after death of her mother therefore, she is not entitled for the pension. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A careful reading of the Government Order indicates that it has been provided in the Government Order that family pension will be considered in case divorce has taken place till the date of death of employee. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A careful reading of the Government Order indicates that it has been provided in the Government Order that family pension will be considered in case divorce has taken place till the date of death of employee. In the present case, the decree has been obtained on 12.09.2015 and the authority has rightly considered the said fact and it has been observed in the impugned order that it is an after thought and the decree dated 12.09.2015 will not prevail and the Government Order dated 01.07.2014 will come into the way as such the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefit. The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was divorced in the year 2013 which was mutual between husband and wife and therefore, Personal Law will prevail and divorce should be given due consideration for giving pension. In my opinion, this argument cannot survive in view of Government order dated 01.07.2014. Moreover, Para 4 of Government order is not challenged by the petitioner which is prospective in nature and it provides that till the date of death, the dependents should be divorced. Once the Government Order is unchallenged, the relief cannot be granted. The judgment of Madras High Court cited by petitioner is not applicable in present facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The writ petition is misconceived. Dismissed.