Special Appeal by Gulab Devi challenging an order where the Single Bench directed the widow petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority regarding pension benefits. The court upheld the order, stating writ courts are not to make regular inquiries when rival claims require adequate evidence from the authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 86 of 2018
Appellant :- Gulab Devi Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Kapil Dev Singh Rathore,B.S. Pandey
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 51037 of 2014.
Under the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench while disposing of Writ-A No. 51037 of 2017 kept the respondentpetitioner Smt. Gujia Devi at liberty to make a representation before respondent no. 4 raising all her grievances and annexing therewith all documentary evidences on that she intent to rely.
In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ with assertion that she is entitled for all post-retiral and pensionary benefits being legally wedded wife of deceased Sri Hansraj Singh who was working as Sub Station Operator at Indra Bhavan, Civil Line, Allahabad. Respondent no. 4 considered respondent no. 5, namely, Smt. Gulab Devi the present appellant to have post retiral and other pensionary benefits by treating her as widow of Late Sri Hansraj Singh.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the entire material to arrive at the conclusion that one among the two is entitled to pension was available before learned Single Bench and, therefore, no occasion was there to remit the matter for consideration to respondent no. 4.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court in normal course is not required to make regular inquiry, it is for the authority concerned to examine rival claims in light of the evidence adduced and by taking adequate care of applicable rules.
In the case in hand, learned Single Bench looking to the complicated disputed facts considered it appropriate to direct the respondent-petitioner to submit a representation with adequate evidence to the competent Authority and rightly so looking to the nature of the remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
No interference, as such, is warranted with the order impugned.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2018 Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court erred in directing the petitioner to submit a representation with evidence to the competent authority in a dispute over pensionary benefits instead of adjudicating the rival cla
Whether the Single Bench required interference under Article 226 for not making a regular inquiry into a disputed pension claim where complicated facts existed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gulab Devi
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
