Disposed

Smt. Neelam Singh v. Union of India and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIC/17547/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that once the competent authority processed the claim, the insurance company could not delay the rightful claim indefinitely. The Court directed the insurer to ensure payment within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company must ensure payment of the claim within three weeks of the certified copy of this order, without issuing further notice.

Smt. Neelam Singh Vs Union of India and 6… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132175-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17547 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mridul Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to benefit of Insurance, Family Pension and other benefits to be provided under the scheme of Prime Minister Poor Welfare Scheme pending before them within stipulated period.

¶8

On the matter being taken up on 23.5.2023, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7. None appears for the respondent No.1.

¶10

According to the petitioner, her husband Dr. Prem Narayan son of Itwari Lal was posted in a Primary Health Centre and served during the Pandemic COVID-19. While serving, he was tested positive and died in District Hospital, Manpuri on 05.01.2021. The petitioner submitted representation before the authority concerned including the respondent No.3 but compensation as provided under the Government Order No.249-/??-11-220-04( ??)/2015- ??. ??. dated 11.04.2020, has not yet been paid to her.

¶11

We find that as per letter of the respondent No.3, i.e. the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lucknow bearing Letter No.201 dated 28.04.2023 addressed to the respondent No.6, i.e. the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri, the benefit under the aforesaid Scheme could not be granted to the petitioner because of the delay caused by the authorities and consequently, the respondent No.3 required the respondent No.6 to fix liability of the erring officials for the delay.

¶12

In view of the facts as emerging from the letter of the respondent No.3 dated 28.04.2023, it appears that there was no fault of the petitioner and yet she is being deprived from her lawful entitlement for compensation under the aforesaid government order dated 11.04.2020.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three days' time to obtain instructions from the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6.

¶14

As prayed, put up as a fresh case on 29.05.2023.

¶15

When the case is listed next, the name of Chief Standing Counsel shall be shown as counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7."

¶16

In response to the aforesaid order, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has placed the detailed instructions dated 26.5.2023 sent by the Secretary of the department concerned, which is taken on record. On the basis of instructions, he submits that the claim of the petitioner is already processed and adequate information in this regard had already been sent to the insurance company-New India Assurance Company Ltd. Even reminder has also been sent on 26.5.2023. He submits that matter is ceased before the insurance company for disbursement of the claim.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the competent authority has already processed the claim set up by the petitioner in the light of the order dated 23.5.2023, we make it clear that the insurance company can not sit over the rightful claim of the petitioner for indefinite period.

¶18

In view of above, without issuing notice to the insurance company, we direct the insurance company that in case there is no other impediment, the payment in question must be ensured on the basis of recommendation of State respondents preferably within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 SP/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Neelam Singh v. Union of India and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Singh v. Union of India and 6 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

Smt. Krishna Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyanarayan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Srikant Tyagi and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Chandra Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others