Remanded

Smt. Sona Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2020WRIA/6326/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two concurrent writ petitions claiming compassionate appointment as second daughters of a deceased employee. On consent, the Court remitted the matter to the District Magistrate for speaking orders within three months, mandating a hearing and considering widow status.

What did the court decide?

The District Magistrate, Deoria is directed to decide the competing claims by a speaking order within three months after hearing the petitioners, considering specific factors.

Smt. Sona Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6326 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Sona Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Behari Singh,Manish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

With

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11680 of 2019

¶5

Petitioner :- Sandhya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Yadav,Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel and Shri Devdutt Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsels for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

By the impugned order dated 22.02.2020 the claim of the petitioner Smt. Sona Devi for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the foot of the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner Sandhya Devi who is the second daughter of the deceased employee.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping both the writ petitions pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, both writ petitions are being disposed of finally.

¶10

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is

¶11

remitted to the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Deoria.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Deoria, to execute the following directions:

¶13

I. The respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Deoria, shall decide the competing claims of the daughters of the deceased employee who are the petitioners in the respective writ petitions for grant of appointment under Dying-inHarness Rules.

¶14

II. The respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Deoria, shall decide the case of the petitioners, by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad along with a copy of fresh representation.

¶15

II.i. The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioners (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

III. The respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Deoria, shall take into consideration the fact that the petitioner Smt. Sona Devi is a widow apart from other relevant aspects which need examination for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶17

IV. The petitioners shall be given an opportunity of hearing by the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Deoria before passing final order.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.11.2020 Dhananjai

Smt. Sona Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sona 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

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kishan Paswan Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pradyuman Tiwari and 2 Ors. Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Saxena and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others