Dismissed¶18

Manju Alias Manju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024/3950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-gratia; Covid-19 death; election duty; Gram Pradhan elections 2021; Enforcement Constable; transport department; Jalaun; IGRS complaint; District Magistrate recommendation; Director Panchayati Raj; State Government rejection order dated 28.05.2024; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty to file fresh writ; mandamus; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Sangeeta Chandra and Shree Prakash Singh, JJ.; decision dated 4.7.2024.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the State Government; the affidavit is kept on record. ¶18

Manju Alias Manju Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45479-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3950 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manju Alias Manju Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayat Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Dixit,Rakesh K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel who appears on behalf of State-respondent and opposite party no. 3, the Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. Lucknow.

¶6

This Court had passed an order on 1.5.2024 which is quoted hereinunder:-

¶7

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties and Sri Aakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

¶8

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶9

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent concerned to provide the amount of ex-gratia to the petitioner against death of her husband, namely, Mahendra Pal Singh, who died during pandemic of Covid-19 discharging his duties on the post of Enforcement Constable under transport department in district Jalaun under Government Order issued by the State Government from time to time for which the petitioner is fully entitled."

¶10

3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband late Mahendra Pal Singh was serving as a Constable in the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Jalaun, office at Orai and was deployed for election duty during the elections of Gram Pradhan in 2021, but due to Covid-19 pandemic, the husband of the petitioner died on 02.05.2021. After the death of petitioner's husband, the petitioner came to know several Government Orders issued with regard to such persons, who had died in election duty.

¶11

4. The petitioner approached the office of the District Magistrate, Jaluan for payment of amount of ex-gratia. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Jalaun also recommended the case of the petitioner, but no action was taken. The petitioner moved a complaint through IGRS on 09.12.2021 for being paid the amount of ex-gratia. The Regional Transport Officer, Jhansi called for a report. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Jalaun sent his report on 22.01.2022 in favour of the petitioner and recommended for payment of ex-gratia, but nothing was done in the matter thereafter.

¶12

5. The petitioner also approached the District Administration again and the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Jalaun sought a report from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi. On 17.11.2022, a report was sent by the Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi to the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Jalaun. The District Magistrate, Jalaun also sent a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of UP., Department of Panchayati Raj on 3.1.2023 mentioning the entire facts and recommending for payment of ex-gratia to the petitioner. A copy of the letter sent by the District Magistrate, Jalaun has been annexed as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate, Jalaun was called for some clarification. Despite the District Magistrate, Jalaun has again sent a

¶13

letter on 12.05.2023 in favour of the petitioner, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner til date.

¶14

6. List this matter on 10.05.2024, as fresh.

¶15

7. In case the Director of Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow, opposite party no.3, does not take any positive steps for payment of compensation/ex-gratia on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Jalaun by the next date, he shall appear in person before this Court to assist the Court along with relevant record."

¶16

Thereafter, the matter was taken up before the Court on 10.05.2024 and the Director appear in person and apprise the Court that he is not the authority to sanction payment. He has written to the Government in this regard and he undertook to pursue the matter with the State Government. The Court had directed the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file their affidavits by the next date of listing and the Director, Panchayati Raj was given the liberty to attend the proceedings through Video Conferencing. Today, when the matter is taken up Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has informed this Court that the Director had written to the State government, but the State Government has rejected the claim of the petitioner by detailed order. A copy of the order has been filed at annexure no. 2 to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 today, in the Court. A copy of which has been served upon counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner will now have to challenge the order passed the by State Government, rejecting the case of the petitioner.

¶18

This petition has become infructuous. It is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the State Government.

¶19

The affidavit is kept on record.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Mayank

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Detailed order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner's claim for ex-gratia payment, filed as annexure no. 2 to the affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 3.¶18
State Government (Government of U.P.) · 28.05.2024
Prior proceeding
Writ petition filed with main prayer for mandamus commanding respondents to provide ex-gratia against the death of petitioner's husband Mahendra Pal Singh, who died during the Covid-19 pandemic while discharging duties as Enforcement Constable under the transport department in district Jalaun.¶9
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's husband, a Constable in the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Jalaun, was deployed for Gram Pradhan election duty in 2021 and died of Covid-19 on 02.05.2021.¶10
Prior proceeding
Petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Jalaun; the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Jalaun recommended her case; she moved an IGRS complaint on 09.12.2021; a favourable report recommending ex-gratia was sent on 22.01.2022, but nothing was done.¶11
Prior proceeding
District Panchayati Raj Officer, Jalaun sought a report from CMO Hardoi (sent 17.11.2022); the District Magistrate, Jalaun wrote to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj on 3.1.2023 recommending ex-gratia, and again by letter dated 12.05.2023, yet no compensation was paid.¶12
Prior proceeding
By order dated 1.5.2024 this Court directed that if the Director of Panchayati Raj did not take positive steps for payment of compensation/ex-gratia on the District Magistrate, Jalaun's recommendation, he shall appear in person with the relevant record.¶15
Prior proceeding
On 10.05.2024 the Director appeared in person, stated he was not the authority to sanction payment, and undertook to pursue the matter with the State Government; respondent nos. 1 to 3 were directed to file affidavits.¶16
Prior proceeding
On the hearing date, the Court was informed that the State Government had rejected the petitioner's claim by detailed order dated 28.05.2024, a copy of which was filed with the affidavit of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and served on counsel for the petitioner.¶16

Manju Alias Manju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Alias Manju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Mohd. Kamran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Information and Public Relations Deptt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Vitol Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) , Unnao and Others

Ravi @ Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Givt. Finance Govt. Lko and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Vs U.O.I. through Secy. Power and Energy and Ors.

Seema and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Thru Chief R.M. Lucknow and Anr.

Mushibat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others