Disposed

Dinesh Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020WRIA/12087/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus for the release of gratuity and interest for his late wife's family. The court disposed of the petition without prejudice to merits, directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to decide the pending representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.4 to consider and decide representation dated 13.01.2020 within two months.

Dinesh Chandra Dixit Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12087 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for (I) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Kanpur Dehat (Respondent No. 4) to take immediate steps for releasing the amount of Gratuity claimed by petitioner alongwith interest at the rate 8% per annum, (II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Kanpur Dehat to consider and decide representation dated 13.01.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the death of petitioner's wife, Family Pension has been released vide order dated 30.06.2018 in favour of the petitioner but amount of Gratuity has not been released so far in favour of petitioner. In this regard, petitioner moved a representation before the authority concerned on 13.01.2020. The said representation of the petitioner may be directed to decide expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶8

Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has no objection to the same and learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid contention and states that in case the said representation is still pending, the same shall be considered and disposed off in accordance with law.

¶9

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed off with direction to the respondent no.4 to consider and decide the representation dated 13.01.2020 pending before it, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶10

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Priya

Dinesh Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra Dixit v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Mohd. Siddique and Another Vs Shri Sultan Ahmad and Others

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs Addl. Commissionerjudicial Jhansi Division Jhansi andOTHERS

Fatema Parveen Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Prakash Chand Tyagi Vs D.I.O.S. and Others

Mithilesh Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vikash Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others