Disposed

Prateek Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIA/10450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ relief for non-payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. The Court disposed of the petition without merits, directing the District Inspector of Schools to examine the claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without merits; liberty to prefer representation before Fourth Respondent; Fourth Respondent directed to examine claim within three months.

Prateek Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132707

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10450 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Prateek Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are three in number, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1 to 5.

¶7

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the sixth respondent.

¶8

The case of the petitioners is that their father, namely, Sri Sant Lal (since deceased) was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the sixth respondent- institution in the year 1996 by virtue of an appointment order dated 21.12.1996, however, he died-in-harness on 07.05.2019, it has been further averred that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Lalti Devi expired on 20.08.2013, thereafter applications were preferred by the petitioners for the grant of compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits. It is further the case of the first petitioner namely Prateek Kumar that he was accorded compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) on 09.06.2020 in the sixth respondent-institution and the pension had been sanctioned in favour of petitioner no.3 Prashant Kumar vide order dated 28.08.2020, but the death-cumretirement gratuity has not been paid till date.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the pension has been paid then it pre-supposes a situation whereby the deceased was entitled for pension and the writ petitioners being the legal heir and the natural sons of the deceased, were entitled for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further invited the attention of the Court towards the representation preferred on 16.06.2023 to the third respondent, Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Kanpur Division, Kanpur and the fourth respondent, The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, but the same has not been addressed till date.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the issues with regard to the payment of death-cum-retirement benefits

¶11

are issues, which are to be determined and taken care of by the fourth respondent, The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petition on board, however, according to him, they do not propose to file any response.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted these suggestions made by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition before the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, who shall on the receipt of the same, proceed to examine the claim of the writ petitioner.

¶14

It is further clarified that the fourth respondent shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner after thoroughly going through the same and if necessary summoning the records from the sixth respondents in that regard.

¶15

The said exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶17

Needless to point out that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶18

It is open for the fourth respondent to decide the matter independently without being influenced and obsessed by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prateek Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Dr.Mayank Jain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ratna Shankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arun Kumar Shahi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Sagar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashutosh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kashi Nath Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others