Allowed

Priyanka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024WRIA/7862/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking ex-gratia compensation for the petitioner's mother, a Shiksha Mitra who died during Covid-19, whose claim was rejected for lack of documentary evidence of cause of death. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the court quashed the rejection order and directed a fresh decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.02.2024 quashed; respondents directed to pass fresh order on the ex-gratia claim per cited precedents within two months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69440

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7862 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Priyanka

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Keshari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 as well as Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶9

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

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 05.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being paid the ex-gratia payment on account of the death of the mother of the petitioner, which is alleged to have occurred on account of Covid-19, has been rejected.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's mother was working on the post of Shiksha Mitra who died on 24.04.2021 on account of Covid-19. The claim preferred by the petitioner for being paid the ex-gratia compensation on account of death of her mother on account of Covid-19 has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 05.02.2024 solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to indicate that the death of her mother namely Mrs. Sirmala Devi was on account of Covid-19.

¶12

The contention is that the aforesaid rejection order passed by the respondent(s) reflects patent non application of mind to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others (2021) 6 AWC 5746 SC wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no States shall deny the ex-gratia assistance of Rs.50,000/- to the next of the kin of the deceased who died due to Covid-19 solely on the ground that in the death certificate issued by the appropriate authority, the cause of death is not mentioned as "Died due to Covid-19".

¶13

Further placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ A No.8716 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure No.14 to the petition, the contention is that this Court has also considered the rejection of the claim that had been done by the respondents on the ground that the RTPCR test had not been submitted and this Court after placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) has required the respondents to reconsider the matter with regard to the compensation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) as well as judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nisha and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ C No.86 of 2022 decided on 18.05.2022 which also pertains to the same issue.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid, more particularly, when the respondents vide the order impugned dated 05.02.2024 have rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence or otherwise to indicate that the deceased died on account of

¶15

Covid-19 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra), and of this Court passed in the cases of Sunita Prajapati (supra) and Nisha (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 05.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the affidavit, is quashed.

¶16

The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order with regard to the claim of compensation of the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) as well as by this Court in the cases of Nisha (supra) and Sunita Prajapati (supra) . Let an order be passed in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 S. Shivhare

¶18

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

Priyanka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 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

Sakib Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Juvenile X, Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manager Head Branch Poonawala Fincorp Ltd. Thru. Sandeep Kumar Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Basant Kumar @ Basant Kumar Verma vs U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Thru. Managing Director Lko and 3 Others

Bijendra Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Lko and 2 Others