Disposed

Roshan Kumar v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2020WRIA/1255/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment and terminal dues for his deceased father. Court refused compassionate appointment due to lack of scheme. Court directed Respondent to deal with terminal dues claim within three months of receiving representation and communicate decision within three months, keeping merits open.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent to consider terminal dues claim within three months of receiving representation and communicate final decision within three months; dismissed compassionate appointment prayer.

Roshan Kumar Vs Union of India and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1255 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Roshan Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Although the first and second respondents are represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India, none has appeared on their behalf even in the revised call.

¶7

The prayer made in the petition reads thus:-

¶8

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to give compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness after the death of his father who was working as General Majdoor in the respondents No.2 organization.

¶9

(II). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.2 to pay entire dues like gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and other admissible amounts which is liable to be paid by the respondent authorities after the death of the father of the petitioner."

¶10

Insofar as relief No.1 is concerned, in the absence of any scheme or statutory provision being placed on the record, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. Insofar as the claim for terminal dues such as gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and other admissible amounts are concerned, the ends of justice would merit the second respondent being commanded to deal with that claim with expedition.

¶11

Accordingly and subject to the petitioner submitting a detailed representation before the second respondent within a period of three weeks from today, the Court hereby directs the said respondent to deal with the issues raised therein and to communicate a final decision within a period of three months from the date of making of that representation.

¶12

All contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.

¶13

The petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.1.2020 faraz

Roshan Kumar v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Kumar v. Union of India and Another

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

Ganesh Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Meera Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Gulam Haidar Vs State of U.P.and 5 Ors.

Umakant Vs Chairman State Bank of India and 5 Others

Kamaludadin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramdayal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others