Disposed

Smt Sadhana Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023WRIC/35551/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to decide the writ petition on merits, directing the petitioner to move a fresh representation within ten days. The respondent authority is required to examine and remedy grievances within two weeks. No legal opinion was rendered on the substantive claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to move fresh representation; direction to respondent authority to resolve grievance within two weeks.

Smt Sadhana Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198420-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35551 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Sadhana Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking direction upon the respondents to make the payment under financial assistance under death disabilities pension scheme and to resolve her grievances expeditiously.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that husband of the petitioner died on 1.1.2017 on account of incurable disease and the petitioner filed application on 7.2.2017 seeking financial assistance under the Death Disabilities Pension Scheme before the first respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has given several applications for grant of financial assistance under the said scheme before the respondents but nothing has been done. On 17.2.2021 enquiry was conducted by Labour Enforcement Officer and recommendation for benefit has been granted. Thereafter, on 14.10.2022, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur has written letter to respondent no.1 and on 7.3.2022 a direction was issued for application may be made online. He submits that despite fulfillment of all the requirement by the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any action regarding payment under the said scheme.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to keep the present petition pending consideration and dispose of the same requiring the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the concerned authority ventilating her grievances within ten days from today and in case any such representation is preferred, we hope and trust that the same would be looked into, examined and remedied strictly in accordance with law by the concerned authority within two weeks from the date of filing of such representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶10

Needless to say that we have not adverted any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Manish Himwan

¶12

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sadhana Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sadhana Pandey 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

M/S Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Jai Maa Bhawani Gaushaala (Cowshed) Samiti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parshadi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Radha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others