Dismissed

Abha Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC31 May 2023/4072/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition for compassionate appointment was dismissed. The court held the second application was not maintainable due to a long lapse since the unchallenged initial rejection and the corporation's continued financial losses, citing Article 16 exceptions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding the plea not maintainable after a long lapse.

Abha Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:39140

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4072 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Abha Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Narain Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent and died while on duty in the year 2014. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the same was rejected on 16.06.2015 citing the Government Order dated 11.07.2003 and taking the ground that the respondent/corporation is running in losses. The said order was not challenged.

¶7

2. Subsequently, in December, 2021, the petitioner on learning that the financial condition of the corporation has improved, applied afresh for consideration, which has again been rejected on 28.01.2022 on the same grounds.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent/corporation is now out of losses.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, based upon instructions, argues that the loss of the respondent/corporation is still continuing; in fact, although the losses may have boiled down but still the corporation is running in losses.

¶10

5. Considering the fact that the application of the petitioner stood rejected in the year 2015, which order was not challenged, the second application on the same ground would not be maintainable. Even otherwise, the respondent/corporation is still running into losses. Thus, no good case for interference is made out as it is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground being exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained after a long lapse of time.

¶11

6. No good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 31.5.2023 nishant

¶13

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abha Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abha Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tourism Deptt. Lko 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

Rafi-Ul-Kadar(Deceased) Thru. Legal Representative Rafat Jamal and Others Vs Smt. Noorjahan(Deceased) Thru. Legal Representative Zubair Ahmad and Others

Ramadhar Alias Ramadhar Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Ujagir Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Agriculture Edu.andRESEARCH and Ors.

Dan Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru the Addl Chief Secy. Deptt of Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Anjarul Haque Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lko. Thru.Its Managing Director and 2 Others