Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash a rejection order regarding ex-gratia compensation and sought a direction to provide compensation. The Court, noting the respondents had no objection, relied on a prior co-ordinate bench judgment to direct consideration of the claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148592-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9848 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Shobha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Gupta,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC).
2. By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.1.2022 passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hardoi Region, Hardoi by which the claim of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that report of the Covid-19 are against the real facts and not covered in the government order dated 11.4.2022.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the competent authority shall take decision and provide ex-gratia compensation amount as per government order dated 11.4.2022."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance upon the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WRIT - C No. - 31811 of 2021 ( Smt. Shobha Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others ) wherein reliance was place upon the Government Order dated 11th April, 2020 by which the petitioner was entitled to ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in terms of the Government Order dated 11.04.2020. The Court has also opined that the aforesaid Government Order dated 11.04.2020 includes different category of employees including those engaged on contractual basis in the employment of government departments or corporations.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the husband of the petitioner was Conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, therefore, in the light of Clause-IV of the
Government Order dated 11.04.2020, claim of the petitioner is to be considered by the respondent-Corporation.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. have no objection to the prayer advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that claim of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench in WRIT - C No. - 31811 of 2021 ( Smt. Shobha Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others ).
7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Sachin/
Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for ex-gratia compensation under the Government Order dated 11.4.2022 should be considered.
Whether reliance can be placed on the Government Order dated 11.4.2020 for contractual employees.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Shobha Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4 OthersRelied on¶10
WRIT - C No. - 31811 of 2021 (Smt. Shobha Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shobha Devi
State of U.P.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Hardoi
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
