JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Indra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition, praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents, commanding them to pay her family pension, admissible under the rules and due to her on account of the services of her deceased husband, the late Shakir Husain. 3. The petitioner’s husband retired on 31.01.2018 from the post of a Technician Grade-II/ Lineman in the Establishment of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Bareilly. He was in receipt of his retirement pension until his demise on June the 7th, 2022. He had opened an account with the Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Bareilly, bearing Account No. 0043000100429856, where the petitioner was his nominee. In support of the claim, the petitioner has annexed a xerox copy of the Passbook relating to the Bank Account last mentioned. There is on record a xerox copy of a memo dated 25.02.2019, carrying two attested photographs of the petitioner and her husband, submitted to the office of the Executive Engineer for the purpose of sanction and payment of pension and family pension. The memo dated 25.02.2019 is signed by the late Shakir Husain, who appeared in person while submitting the memo before the Executive Engineer, as the petitioner claims. The petitioner’s husband had made an application for pension and family pension on 22.05.2018, and in that application, shown the petitioner’s name as his wife. This application was made to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Bareilly. A xerox copy of the said application is also on record. After her husband’s demise on 07.06.2022, armed with his death certificate dated 05.07.2022 issued by the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, the petitioner moved an application for the release of family pension in her favour, opening an Account in her name with the Indian Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Bareilly on 13.10.2022. The petitioner made further applications for grant of family pension on 16.12.2022, 19.05.2023 and 09.06.2023, addressed to various officers of the State, such as the Chief Secretary, the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and the District Magistrate, Bareilly, requesting that the family pension due to her, on account of her husband’s services, be released in her favour. The petitioner made further applications for grant of family pension on 16.12.2022, 19.05.2023 and 09.06.2023, addressed to various officers of the State, such as the Chief Secretary, the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and the District Magistrate, Bareilly, requesting that the family pension due to her, on account of her husband’s services, be released in her favour. All of these led to no result, as it seems. 4. Aggrieved by the inaction on the respondents’ part in releasing the petitioner’s due family pension, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 5. On the 26th of July, 2023, an application was made in the writ petition, seeking to implead the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Bareilly, as a party respondent to the writ petition. This application was allowed and the petition adjourned to 07.08.2023 with a direction that the name of Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned Counsel for the Electricity Distribution Corporation be printed on the respondents’ side. On 07.08.2023, acting upon what Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the Electricity Distribution Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Bareilly, stated at the Bar, this Court passed the following order: “Upon instructions received, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Khand Ist, Madhyanchal Electricity Distribution Nigam Limited, Bareilly states that the petitioner’s papers for sanction and release of family pension have been forwarded to the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and that the sanction and release of the petitioner’s pension is awaiting action by the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly. Let the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly file his affidavit within a week indicating why the petitioner’s family pension have not been sanctioned and released so far. Lay this petition as fresh on 17.08.2023. Let this order be communicated to the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.” 6. On 17.08.2023, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly, wherein a very startling stand was taken in paragraph Nos. 12, 15 and 16, which read: “12. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that Smt. Farzana has made application on 19-5-2023 thereafter on 9-6-2023 for release of family pension after death of her husband Shakir Husain. 12, 15 and 16, which read: “12. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that Smt. Farzana has made application on 19-5-2023 thereafter on 9-6-2023 for release of family pension after death of her husband Shakir Husain. In respect of said letters it is submitted here that Late Shakir Husain during his life time during ‘Janta Darshan’ by his application dated 8-9-2021 being IGRS No. 2015021008558 dated 24-9-2021 informed that Talak(divorce) is already done with Smt. Farzana, neither he has any concerned with her nor they are living together and through said letter requested that after his death, family pension may not be given to Smt. Farzana. The true/photo copy of request letter dated 6-9-2021 made by Late Shakir Husan on ‘Janta Darshan’ before District Magistrate, Bareilly is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-1 to this affidavit. 15. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition it is submitted that taking into consideration the request letter dated 8-9-2021 made by Late Shakir Husain that Talak (divorce) is already done with Smt. Farzana, neither he has any concerned with her nor they are living together and through said letter requested that after his death, family pension may not be given to Smt. Farzana, therefore in pursuance of said letter, answering respondent vide its letter No. 399 dated 24-6-2023 made information to the District Magistrate, Bareilly, stated all facts to him, also asked for suitable direction for payment of family pension to the petitioner, thereafter on instruction of District Magistrate, the answering respondent written letter on 5-7-2023 to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Bareilly to made enquiry and informed that Talak (divorce) is done with Smt. Farzana (petitioner) with her husband Late Shakir Husain or not, so that further action may be taken. The true/photo copies of letters to District Magistrate dated 24-6-2023 and letter to Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Bareilly dated 5-7-2023 are being filed herewith collectively for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-2 to this affidavit. 16. That the contents of paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. The true/photo copies of letters to District Magistrate dated 24-6-2023 and letter to Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Bareilly dated 5-7-2023 are being filed herewith collectively for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-2 to this affidavit. 16. That the contents of paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. In reply thereof it is submitted that till today the answering respondent is awaiting for reply from the District Magistrate, Bareilly as well as the Tehsildar, Tehsil Dadar, Bareilly in pursuance of letter dated 5-7-2023 and as when answering respondent will get response he will made necessary effort to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner.” 7. Noticing the aforesaid stand by the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, denying the fact of a divorce between the petitioner and her husband or that he had submitted to the District Magistrate any application until his demise on 07.06.2022 of the kind mentioned in the Chief Treasury Officer’s affidavit, this Court proceeded to admit the writ petition to hearing on 28.08.2023 and passed the following order: “Parties have exchanged affidavits. Admit. Heard Mr. I.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Let Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advocate produce the service book relating to the late Shakir Hussain, Ex-Technician, Grade-II, who retired on 31.01.2018 from the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Khand-Ist, Madhyanchal Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd. Katzu Marg, Bareilly. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advocate will also produce the original of the pension nomination form, a copy of which is annexed at page no. 24 of the paper book. An affidavit shall also be filed by day after tomorrow by the Executive Engineer indicating whether any decree of divorce passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction or a duly authenticated talaknama was produced before the Executive Engineer by the late Shakir Hussain. List for further hearing day after tomorrow i.e. 30.08.2023 at 2:00 p.m. Let this order be communicated to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Khand-Ist, Madhyanchal Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd. Katzu Marg, Bareilly, District Bareilly by the Registrar (Compliance) today.” 8. List for further hearing day after tomorrow i.e. 30.08.2023 at 2:00 p.m. Let this order be communicated to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Khand-Ist, Madhyanchal Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd. Katzu Marg, Bareilly, District Bareilly by the Registrar (Compliance) today.” 8. In compliance with the order dated 28.08.2023, an affidavit of compliance was filed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Bareilly on 25.09.2023, where it is averred in paragraph No. 3 that after the petitioner’s husband’s retirement on 31.01.2018, he appeared along with his wife before the Executive Engineer and a Pension Payment Order (for short, ‘PPO’) was drawn on 21.02.2019, that is within one month of the deceased employee’s retirement. The PPO carries photographs of the deceased employee along with the petitioner. In the PPO dated 21.02.2019, the petitioner’s nomination has been registered as the employee’s wife. The service-book is said, in paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit of compliance, to have been left blank as regards nomination or the employee’s marital status. It is next averred in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit of compliance that after the retired employee’s demise, the petitioner’s claim for release of family pension was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Zonal Office, Bareilly, and from that office, it has been forwarded to the Chief Treasury Officer for further action. The Executive Engineer has also said that he had endorsed the petitioner’s claim through his letters dated 17.01.2023, 24.02.2023 and 11.08.2023, regarding her entitlement to family pension as the deceased’s widow. In paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit, it is averred: “9. That it is clearly stated herein that no Decree of Divorce or Talaknama or any other document has been produced by the deceased employee or by the petitioner. In the absence of any such document, the respondent corporation has forwarded the claim of the petitioner for requisite payments in light of the Rules. 10. That in light of the aforesaid submission, the deponent categorically submits that all dues to the petitioner’s husband till his death were duly paid and so far as family pension is concerned the appropriate steps endorsing the claim of the petitioner have been duly forwarded. 11. 10. That in light of the aforesaid submission, the deponent categorically submits that all dues to the petitioner’s husband till his death were duly paid and so far as family pension is concerned the appropriate steps endorsing the claim of the petitioner have been duly forwarded. 11. That this Hon’ble Court had directed the original pension nomination form to be produced before this Hon’ble Court, which is appended on page No. 24 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that such form has been forwarded to the Zonal Office of the Corporation i.e. to Lucknow and therefore, at present it is not available with the deponent, however, the deponent undertakes that in case this Hon’ble Court further requires the original form to be produced before this Hon’ble Court, the deponent would fetch the form from the General Manager (Finance/Nodal Officer) MVVNL, Lucknow, U.P. and produce the same before the Hon’ble Court, however, it is submitted that the nomination form which is appended with the writ petition is genuine, as the same is also available with the answering respondent in his records. The copy of the clear nomination form along with the attested photographs of the employee and his wife i.e. petitioner and attested passbook is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-4 to this affidavit.” 9. Despite the aforesaid affidavit of compliance filed by the employers, when the matter next came on 08.12.2023, the Chief Treasury Officer would not relent in his stand that the petitioner had been divorced by the deceased employee merely because an application, purporting to be signed by the petitioner’s late husband, when alive, had been made to the Collector. The Chief Treasury Officer took a stand that despite receipt of the PPO from the petitioner’s husband’s employers, he directed an inquiry to be made into the allegations regarding the divorce between the petitioner and her husband. Nothing was produced before the Court on 18.12.2023 of the kind of a decree of divorce or a talaqnama. There was just no evidence about any divorce, either with the Chief Treasury Officer or the petitioner’s husband’s employers, except that the Chief Treasury Officer was convinced that there was a divorce. When the Court indicated its inclination on 08.12.2023 to summon the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly in order to elicit from him the basis for his belief that the petitioner and her husband had divorced, Mr. When the Court indicated its inclination on 08.12.2023 to summon the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly in order to elicit from him the basis for his belief that the petitioner and her husband had divorced, Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel sought telephonic instructions. He informed the Court that the Tehsildar had reported that the petitioner, after her husband’s death, had remarried. These developments led this Court to issue a commission to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly to hold an inquiry, after taking necessary evidence, determining the fact if the petitioner had remarried, in order to curtail controversy. On 08.12.2023, this Court passed the following order: “Prima facie, the stand taken by the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly in the order dated 05.07.2023 appears to be very untenable. Despite the Pension Payment Order being forwarded by the Corporation, the petitioner’s husband’s employers, the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly has directed an inquiry to be made into allegations to the effect that the petitioner’s husband when alive had said that he had divorced his wife, the petitioner. Unless, there is some evidence about a divorce, like a decree of Court or other valid instrument effecting divorce, a divorce between spouses is not to be readily inferred; certainly not because the husband has proclaimed about it in a complaint. There has to be evidence in aliunde about it. No such evidence has been referred to in the order dated 05.07.2023. So far as this order is concerned, it does not at all stand in the way of the petitioner’s right to receive family pension. Upon the Court noticing this order, annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Treasury Officer, District-Bareilly, the Court was minded to summon him and take appropriate action but Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel came to his rescue and sought telephonic instructions. He informed the Court that the Tehsildar has reported that the petitioner, after her husband’s demise, has remarried. Now, this is a matter which does not figure in the Chief Treasury Officer’s order, and, may be, is a later development. In order to curtail controversy and swiftly determine the rights of the petitioner, who, if not remarried, as the Chief Treasury Officer has communicated by instructions to the learned Additional Chief standing Counsel, would suffer irreparable injury by reason of non-payment of her family pension. In order to curtail controversy and swiftly determine the rights of the petitioner, who, if not remarried, as the Chief Treasury Officer has communicated by instructions to the learned Additional Chief standing Counsel, would suffer irreparable injury by reason of non-payment of her family pension. A commission is issued to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly to hold an inquiry taking necessary evidence to determine if there is prima facie evidence that the petitioner has remarried; or the said fact is utterly incorrect. The finding of the Principal Judge, Family Court recorded on commission will of course be a piece of evidence and not a decision of any kind. It will be taken into consideration by this Court for the limited purpose of judging the petitioner’s entitlement to receive family pension. For the purpose of enabling the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly to decide the issue, the petitioner, the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and the Tehsildar, who submitted a report to the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly that the petitioner has remarried, shall all appear before the learned Principal Judge on 12.12.2023 at 11.00 am in his Court. All parties will produce all the relevant evidence in their possession regarding the fact of the petitioner’s remarriage, or, otherwise. Oral testimony of these parties, particularly, the petitioner and the Tehsildar, who made inquiries or any other relevant persons, may also be recorded by the learned Principal Judge. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly will submit a report to this Court on or before 16.12.2023. Put up this matter for further hearing on 16.12.2023 at 2.00 p.m. Let this order be communicated to the petitioner by her learned Counsel, who is present in Court today. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Tehsildar through the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly and the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly today.” 10. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly proceeded to execute this Court’s commission, examining on oath witnesses and other evidence to determine if the petitioner is remarried or the said fact is incorrect. On 12.12.2023, Shailendra Kumar, Chief Treasury Officer, Ram Nayan Singh, Tehsildar, Jai Prakash, Lekhpal and the petitioner, Farzana appeared before the Principal Judge, Family Court. The witnesses were examined on oath and cross-examined by the other side. On 12.12.2023, Shailendra Kumar, Chief Treasury Officer, Ram Nayan Singh, Tehsildar, Jai Prakash, Lekhpal and the petitioner, Farzana appeared before the Principal Judge, Family Court. The witnesses were examined on oath and cross-examined by the other side. The Lekhpal is recorded to have stated that he would produce Dilshad and his mother as witnesses. Dilshad is said to be the man whom Farzana was believed by the Chief Treasury Officer to have remarried after her husband’s demise. On 13.12.2023, Dilshad, Farzana, wife of Dilshad, daughter Qadir, Rizwan and Bundan were examined. They were cross-examined by the other side. The Tehsildar and the Chief Treasury Officer made a statement that they would not produce any further witnesses. 11. In his deposition, the Chief Treasury Officer, Shailendra Kumar stood by his statement that the deceased, Shakir Husain had remarried a woman, called Farzana and had made an application to the District Magistrate on 08.09.2021, speaking about divorcing his wife and also saying that after his demise, his former wife be not paid any pension. However, he could not produce any evidence about Shakir Husain’s divorce or the petitioner’s remarriage to Dilshad. In his cross-examination done on behalf of the petitioner, he admitted that there was no document evidencing a divorce between parties. The complaint made to the District Magistrate did not carry a photograph of parties nor an affidavit in support. He also admitted that there is no nikahnama on record, evidencing the petitioner’s re-marriage to Dilshad. 12. There is evidence of the Tehsildar, Ram Nayan Singh and the Lekhpal, Jai Prakash also on record, but that would not resolve the controversy until the testimony of Dilshad son of Iqbal believed by the Lekhpal and the Tehsildar to be the man, who had married Farzana, is considered, as well as the testimony of the woman, Farzana wife of Dilshad, daughter of Qadir, different from the petitioner, Farzana. Dilshad son of Iqbal testified before the Family Judge that he was living in Haziapura for the past 8-9 years. He was married to Farzana, daughter of Qadir, a resident of Wakarganj, near City Railway Station. They were married about 15-16 years ago. Upon looking at the petitioner, Farzana in the chambers of the Judge, Dilshad said that she was not his wife and they were never married. Dilshad also stated that his wife’s former husband was also named Shakir. He too lived in Haziapur. They were married about 15-16 years ago. Upon looking at the petitioner, Farzana in the chambers of the Judge, Dilshad said that she was not his wife and they were never married. Dilshad also stated that his wife’s former husband was also named Shakir. He too lived in Haziapur. His wife’s former husband, Shakir had died about 4 years ago. He had married Farzana during the lifetime of her former husband, Shakir, after he had divorced her. His wife’s former husband, Shakir was a Chowkidar with the Ashrayasthal in the Establishment of the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. He filed on record a Aadhaar Card of his wife, called Farzana. The Court at this stage has recorded a remark that in the Aadhaar Card, the name of her former husband recorded is Shakir, but her photograph on the Aadhaar Card does not resemble the petitioner. The witness said in his short cross-examination that the petitioner was not his wife. 13. Now, Dilshad’s wife Farzana was examined. Upon being confronted with the petitioner, Farzana and asked if she knew the petitioner, she stated that she had never met her. This witness Farzana (not the petitioner) said that her former husband was also named Shakir son of Munne and, he too, was a resident of Haziapur. She had married Dilshad during his lifetime. Shakir, her husband had divorced this person Farzana orally. She had two sons and a daughter, begotten of her former husband, Shakir. The petitioner, Farzana was never married to her husband in the past or at present. In her cross-examination, she said that her husband Shakir was not employed in the Electricity Department, but the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. He had died about 3 years ago. She did not know if he received any pension from the Nigam. 14. The other two witnesses, who were examined, to wit, Rizwan son of the late Nazakat Husain, did come up with a story that the petitioner, he had heard, was living separately from her husband for the past 3 years and was seen moving about with one Bundan. Bundan was his acquaintance. Bundan would visit the petitioner, Farzana and her husband. The petitioner, Farzana and Dilshad were never married. Dilshad’s wife, Farzana is another woman, this witness testified. The witness said that he had no knowledge about Shakir’s complaint (made to the District Magistrate). Bundan was his acquaintance. Bundan would visit the petitioner, Farzana and her husband. The petitioner, Farzana and Dilshad were never married. Dilshad’s wife, Farzana is another woman, this witness testified. The witness said that he had no knowledge about Shakir’s complaint (made to the District Magistrate). The witness said that he had never seen Farzana being divorced by Shakir nor did he see her being married to Bundan. He had heard a rumour in the locality that Farzana and Bundan had done a nikah. In his cross-examination, the witness said that he did not know the man, who had told her about the petitioner, Farzana and Bundan tying the knot. The witness also said that Bundan had never told her that he had married Farzana. Rather, Bundan denied having married Farzana. 15. Bundan, when examined as a witness, stood steadfast by the fact that he had never married Farzana either during the lifetime of her husband Shakir or after his demise. The petitioner, Farzana was his wife’s cousin, and, therefore, they would frequent her home. His wife’s name was Parveen. The witness did not know if the petitioner was divorced. He testified to the fact that Shakir at the time of his demise was looked after by the petitioner and the parties’ children. He did not know about any bickerings between the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner, Farzana had two sons and a daughter. One son was 21 years of age, the other son 8 years and the daughter 20 years old. 16. On a wholesome examination of the testimony on record threadbare, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly returned the following findings in his commission report dated 14.12.2023: 17. From a perusal of the statements of the various persons recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, acting on this Court’s commission, it is pellucid that the Chief Treasury Officer’s doubt, that has led to deprivation of the petitioner’s pension, is not based on a comedy of errors, but a tragedy of them. From the stand taken by the various witnesses, particularly, Dilshad and his wife, the other Farzana, it is evident that the other Farzana, different from the petitioner, had a former husband, also by the name Shakir, whom she got a divorce from him during his lifetime and remarried Dilshad. The petitioner’s husband too was Shakir Husain. From the stand taken by the various witnesses, particularly, Dilshad and his wife, the other Farzana, it is evident that the other Farzana, different from the petitioner, had a former husband, also by the name Shakir, whom she got a divorce from him during his lifetime and remarried Dilshad. The petitioner’s husband too was Shakir Husain. It is not clear how a complaint was laid to the Collector, but evidently it was baseless. The fact that Dilshad remarried the other Farzana after she was divorced by her first husband, Shakir, led to an inquiry in the complaint being misdirected and reaching an incorrect conclusion by the Lekhpal and the Tehsildar that it was the petitioner, Farzana, who had divorced her husband, Shakir and remarried Dilshad. The petitioner’s husband, Shakir was employed with the Electricity Department, whereas the other Farzana’s first husband, who had divorced that Farzana, was an employee of the Nagar Nigam. The clincher has come in evidence when Dilshad, on being confronted with the petitioner Farzana, has said that she was not his wife. 18. One of the other witnesses, who threw some doubt that the petitioner, Farzana too had remarried Bundan, could not substantiate the fact as Bundan himself denied it stoutly saying that he stays with his wife, named Parveen, who is a cousin of the petitioner, Farzana. There is absolutely no documentary evidence, like a talaqnama or nikahnama ever showing the petitioner having been divorced by her husband, Shakir Husain, or marrying Dilshad or some other man during her husband’s lifetime or thereafter. 19. After looking to this testimony, the learned Standing Counsel for the State did not object to the proceedings before the Commissioner or attempted to show that there was any error about them. The report of the Commissioner was also not objected to in any manner. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents apparently realized their folly in mistaking another Farzana for the petitioner and going astray into holding the petitioner disentitled. 20. This Court is convinced that the petitioner is different from the other Farzana, daughter of Iqbal, who remarried Dilshad, after a divorce by her husband, Shakir, a man different from the petitioner Farzana’s husband, Shakir Husain. 20. This Court is convinced that the petitioner is different from the other Farzana, daughter of Iqbal, who remarried Dilshad, after a divorce by her husband, Shakir, a man different from the petitioner Farzana’s husband, Shakir Husain. There is, thus, absolutely no reason for the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly, objecting to release of family pension to the petitioner, in according with the PPO issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Bareilly in her favour. 21. In the circumscribes, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the Chief Treasury Officer, District Bareilly, the District Magistrate, Bareilly and the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Bareilly to ensure amongst themselves payment of the petitioner’s family pension together with arrears within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this udgment. If arrears of pension are not paid within a month, the petitioner will be entitled to 6% per annum interest simple for the period of delay. A mandamus shall also issue commanding all the said respondents to the effect that current family pension shall be immediately released in the petitioner’s favour and paid to her regularly hereafter in the same manner as any other recipient of family pension. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow, the District Magistrate, Bareilly, the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Bareilly by the Registrar (Compliance).