Dismissed

Smt. Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2021WRIA/6797/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment for the petitioner's son. The court upheld the rejection due to inordinate delay, noting over 31 years had passed since the husband's death, defeating the purpose of immediate hardship mitigation. Justices.Saral Srivastava allowed no interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the order rejecting the compassionate appointment claim was upheld.

Smt. Pooja Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6797 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents.

¶6

The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 22.4.2021 passed by respondent no.5-Commandant, 32 BN, Police Arms Constabulary, Lucknow whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

¶7

The husband of the petitioner was working as 'Constable' in 32 BN, Police Arms Constabulary, Lucknow. He died on 4.6.1990. The petitioner's son at the time of death of his father was minor aged about 3 years 10 months. After about 16 years from the date of death of his father, on 16.12.2006 the petitioner's son submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶8

It appears that when the application for compassionate appointment was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ No. 9506 of 2020 (Pooja Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) after about 14 years from the date of filing of the application for compassionate appointment which was disposed of vide order dated 19.3.2021 directing the authority concerned to decide the claim of the petitioner.

¶9

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is inordinate delay in submitting the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment of her son.

¶10

The petitioner's son submitted his application after he attained majority 16.12.2006 after about 16 years and thereafter, a writ petition was filed, which has been disposed of. Thus, more than 30

¶11

years have passed since the date of death of the petitioner's husband.

¶12

The object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family immediately. Thus, this Court is of the view that since more than 31 years have passed from the date of death of her husband, therefore, there is no good ground to interfere in the impugned order.

¶13

Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2021 SKM

Smt. Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 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

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

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Nitish Mishra and 8 Others Vs Union of India and Another

C/M Sri H.P. Singh(Junior High School) Krishi Inter College and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kunal Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others