Allowed

Ram Sumer v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2023WRIC/40545/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an order rejecting an insurance claim of Rs. 5 Lakhs under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna for the petitioner's deceased wife, on grounds of belated claim and no agricultural holdings. The Court set aside the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.05.2021 set aside; fresh consideration directed within 6 weeks by District Magistrate, Basti.

Ram Sumer Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40545 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Sumer Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been preferred with following main reliefs:-

¶7

"(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.05.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition) to the extent of the case of the petitioner by which the respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the amount of insurance of Rs. 5 Lakhs.

¶8

(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to 5 to pay the amount of Insurance of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner payable under the scheme "Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna" as the wife of the petitioner (Late Subhawati) who died due to road accident."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission contends that the order impugned has been passed merely on the ground that belated claim has been set up, the bread earner survives and the deceased had no agricultural holdings. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Shailesh Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

¶10

He further submits that in the similar facts and circumstances, the order dated 22.06.2022 impugned in the aforesaid writ petition was set aside and the respondents were directed to ensure the ex-gratia payment sanctioned in favour of the petitioners therein within a period of three weeks. Therefore, he submits that for advancement of justice, similar indulgence may also be extended in the present matter.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we

¶12

are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 29.05.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 is per-se unsustainable and the same is set aside and as such, fresh consideration is to be made by the competent authority i.e. District Magistrate, Basti in the light of Shailesh Kumar (supra) .

¶13

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent No. 2 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order before it.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 31.1.2023 Jaswant

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Sumer v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sumer v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujeet Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Sunita Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanju Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs State of U P and 14 Others

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U P and 6 Others