Disposed

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2021WRIA/5461/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, widow of a deceased retired police officer, filed a writ seeking direction to release unpaid pension and gratuity. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the grievance within two weeks and decide via a reasoned order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's grievance within two weeks and pass a reasoned order within two months.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5461 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Urmila Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶6

Husband of petitioner late Keshar Singh was Sub-Inspector in department of Police. He retired from service on 31.12.2013 and he has died in the year 2017.

¶7

It appears that a case no.200/2007 under Sections 392, 506 IPC & Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the deceased employee in which he was acquitted by order of Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 18.02.2015.

¶8

According to the petitioner, certain pensionary benefits including gratuity has not been paid.

¶9

Several representations have been submitted by the husband of the petitioner to the authority concerned but authority did not consider the same. Petitioner being widow, after death of deceased employee, again submitted representation on 09.03.2021 to the respondent no.2-Inspector General of Police, Allahabad, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

¶10

Grievance of the petitioner is that neither the respondent no.2 has paid any heed to the petitioner nor has passed any order for release of pensionary benefits including gratuity.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2-Inspector General of Police, Allahabad, raising all his

¶13

grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.7.2021 S.Sharma

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Khan Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Shiwani Bandhu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Anand Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajeev Kumar and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghvendra Satyarthi Vs the Union of India and 3 Others