Disposed

Nohara Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024WRIA/6072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the District Basic Education Officer regarding unpaid 6th Pay Commission benefits for her late husband. The court disposed of the petition without adjudicating on the merits of her claim.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit a representation for redressal of grievances within two weeks.

Nohara Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79877

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6072 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nohara Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Of Basic Education, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 & 3.

¶8

No notice be issued to respondent no.4 taking in view nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶9

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

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner retired on 30.06.2011 while working as Assistant Teacher. It is further contended that the benefits of 6th Pay Commission along with arrears and salary were neither paid to the husband of the petitioner nor to the petitioner, the widow of Shri Heera Lal.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at some length prays that in this regard she may be permitted to submit a representation to the respondent No.2 for redressal of her grievances and the respondent No.2 be directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a specified time to which learned counsel for the respondents have no objection.

¶12

Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a representation for the redressal of her grievances pertaining to her grievance within a period of two weeks from today before the respondent No.2 i.e. Distirict Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, District Ambedkar Nagar, who may consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with rules and shall endeavour to decide the representation by means of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and relevant rules within a further period of eight weeks from the

¶13

date of submission of the representation along with the certified copy of this order.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 S. Shivhare

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nohara Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nohara Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Basic Education, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ayush Srivastava @ Kushal Thru. His Father Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Sanjay Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bal Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shubham Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Krishanveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Muzib Ahmad Vs Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-Iv, Unnao and Others