Disposed

Smt. Sashibala v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. of Directorate of Geology and Mining, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024WRIA/3183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks further action regarding compassionate appointment of her spouse after their son's death. Court permitted fresh representation to be submitted with a fixed timeline for decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within two weeks; Directorate directed to decide within 6 weeks via reasoned order.

Smt. Sashibala vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31945

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3183 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Sashibala Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Of Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed contending that after the death of son of the petitioner namely Rohit Kumar his wife Smt Vijay Lakshmi has been appointed on compassionate grounds. Subsequent thereto she is not supporting the family of the deceased employee and hence the writ petition.

¶8

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. Director, Directorate of Geology & Minerals Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection.

¶9

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 in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a further period of 6 weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶10

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶11

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶13

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sashibala v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. of Directorate of Geology and Mining, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sashibala v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. of Directorate of Geology and Mining, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 6 Others

Munish Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Krishna Kumar Srivastav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resource Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Shiv Ram Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mirtunjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others