Allowed

Shanti Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2024WRIA/7723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking pension benefits. Rejecting the claim that a pending appeal precluded relief, the court quashed the earlier rejection order and directed respondents to extend the benefit of its own precedent (Smt. Chandrakanti Devi) to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to extend benefit of Smt. Chandrakanti Devi judgment to petitioner.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77640

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7723 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shanti Devi

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Awadhesh Kumar Pandey

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.K. Singh, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 5.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.07.2024 whereby the claim of the petitioner for pension has been rejected by the BSA, Pratapgarh vide the order impugned on various grounds.

¶11

There is a consensus at Bar that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this court passed in Writ A No.21482 of 2016 in Re: Smt. Chadrakanti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 07.08.2024, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 12 to the petition.

¶12

At this stage, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 5 states that the respondent No.3 is in the process of filing a Special Appeal against the said order.

¶13

It is not the case on the part of the respondents that a special appeal has, in fact, been filed against the order of the writ Court

¶14

dated 07.08.2024 passed in the case of Smt. Chandrakanti Devi (supra) and the same in turn has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the aforesaid ground cannot be considered to be a valid ground on the part of the respondents to not give the benefits of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Chandrakanti Devi (supra) to the petitioner also.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanti Devi (supra). The order impugned dated 31.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Chandrakanti Devi (supra) to the petitioner also.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.11.2024 S. Shivhare

¶17

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

Shanti Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Anurag Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Gyanvati Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sec. Edu. Lko. and Others

Shiv Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 Others

Janardan Tiwari Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications and 2 Others

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 4 Others