Disposed

Anjana Vishvakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2024/3501/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, at the consent of counsel, disposed of a writ petition regarding family pension entitlement without adjudicating merits. It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to be decided by the respondent authorities within a fixed timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation within two weeks; Respondents directed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks; Writ petition disposed without adjudication on merits.

Anjana Vishvakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34797

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3501 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anjana Vishvakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an unmarried daughter of Sri Prem Narayan Vishwakarma, who had retired from the post of Workshop Instructor from Sanjay Gandhi Government Polytechnic, Jagdishpur, District Amethi and was in receipt of family pension upto November, 2008. Subsequent to his death, the mother of the petitioner was receiving family pension who too died in May 2021. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of relevant Government Orders the petitioner in the capacity of being unmarried daughter is entitled for receipt of family pension.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.2 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶10

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.5.2024 A. Katiyar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anjana Vishvakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Vishvakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Swadesh Kumar Pno 062260015 and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Sen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt., Lko. and Another

Suraj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irregation Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others