Dismissed

Maya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022SPLAD/550/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge refused leave to a writ petitioner for compassionate appointment. The appellant, a potential claimant, sought leave to appeal fearing her claim would be ignored. The court held the Single Judge did not rule out competing claims and declined to grant leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal and delay condonation application were rejected and consigned to the record.

Maya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 550 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Maya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

This Appeal has been presented against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.07.2022 in Writ A No. 10772 of 2022 along with an application seeking leave to appeal and a delay condonation application.

¶6

The appellant, who was not a party in the Writ proceedings before learned single Judge, seeks leave to appeal against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge by which the claim of the Writ Petitioner i.e. Sangita Yadav, who claims herself to be daughter of Durga Prasad, seeking compassionate appointment, is to be considered as per the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

¶7

According to the appellant, she is daughter-in-law of late Durga Prasad who died in harness; her husband died earlier, therefore she being dependent on the employee who died in harness is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.

¶8

Notably, the order impugned in this Appeal does not decide inter se rights of the parties. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be that since a direction has been issued to consider the claim of the writ petitioner, the concerned authority may not consider the claim of the appellant.

¶9

In our view that apprehension is misplaced because the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by Sangita Yadav (Respondent No. 3) has not observed that the concerned authority will not examine any other competing claim for compassionate appointment. The appellant is therefore at liberty to present a claim before the concerned authority. In case her claim is not considered, it would be open for her to challenge the decision by taking recourse to an appropriate remedy.

¶10

In view of the above, we decline the prayer to grant leave to the appellant to appeal against the impugned judgement and order

¶11

of the learned single judge.

¶12

The leave to appeal application is consequently rejected.

¶13

As we have rejected the application seeking leave to appeal, the delay condonation application and the appeal are consigned to the record.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.11.2022 A. Mandhani

¶15

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK MANDHANI Date: 2022.11.25 11:05:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya 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

Lavkush Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Const. No. 563 Civil Police (Dismissed) Munendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhroov Chaudhary Vs Union Of India and 3 Others

Nandlal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Archana Paliwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Gautam Class IV Chowkidar Vs State of U.P. and Others