Dismissed

Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019WRIA/2384/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the withholding of family pension, the High Court disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within three weeks. The respondent authority was ordered to pass a speaking order after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file fresh representation within three weeks; Respondent to decide within eight weeks after hearing.

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2384 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Sushila Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Juned Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

When the writ petition was filed in the year 2016, one Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kushi Nagar. On 20.1.2016 on the request of Sri S.K.Singh time was granted to seek instructions in the matter on the point that why pension which was being paid to the petitioner has been stopped since 2012. Thereafter, matter was listed on various occasion but somehow or the other matter could not be taken up. Vide order dated 2.3.2016, learned standing counsel was further directed to seek instruction and the matter was directed to be put up in additional cause list of 29.3.2016. The order passed on 2.3.2016 is quoted below-

¶6

"Learned counsel for the respondent was directed to seek instruction on 20.01.2016. He is not present in the court. He is granted further time to seek instruction.

¶7

Put up this case on 29.03.2016 in the additional cause list.

¶8

It is made clear that in case on the next date, instruction is not received, the application for interim order shall be considered.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall inform the learned counsel for the respondent about this order, in writing, within two days. "

¶10

Thereafter when the matter was listed on 2.1.2019 order was passed to list the case showing the name of Sri P.D. Tripathi as counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Copy of the writ petition has been supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Sri P.D. Trpathi, Advocate.

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for following relief-

¶12

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 05.12.2015 and to direct to pay Family Pension as fixed earlier i.e. Rs. 4,230/-."

¶13

It is contented by the the learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner was working in Junior High School, Mathiya Shri Ram, Kushi Nagar who unfortunately died on

¶14

25.08.1998 during the course of his service. After the death of her husband family pension was sanctioned and the same was regularly paid to the petitioner without any break at Rs.4,230/-. Payment slip in this regard is appended as Annexure 17 to the writ petition. It is further contended that office of respondent no. 2 have directed the petitioner to fill up the new application form for family pension which the petitioner already submitted. It is contented that thereafter family pension of the petitioner was reduced from 4,230/- to Rs.3645/-. Thereafter petitioner has received reduced pension upto October, 2012 and since November, 2012 no pension is being paid to the petitioner. In this regard petitioner has submitted representation before the respondent no. 2 and when no action was taken the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶15

As stated above, time was granted to the learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions but till date no instructions have been provided by respondent no.2 and 3.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner make afresh representation stating her grievances before respondent no. 2 within three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pass appropriate speaking order on the representation so moved by the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to her within a further of eight weeks thereafter.

¶17

It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the matter and respondent no.2 will take a decision independently, in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.1.2019 M.A.Ansari

Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yad Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anup Singh and 23 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gauri Goswami Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rohit Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Afaque Ahmad Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others