Disposed¶18

Smt. Rakhi Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025WRIC/40474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice; pre-decisional hearing; audi alteram partem; recovery of compensation from employees; U.P. State Human Rights Commission order dated 09.01.2025; compensation Rs. 2,50,000/-; death of pregnant patient after alleged refusal of treatment at CHC Pilibhit; staff nurses; order dated 04.06.2025 fixing recovery liability set aside; remand to State for fresh consideration after hearing; writ petition disposed of; WRIT - C No. - 40474 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Atul Sreedharan, J.; Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; decided November 26, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.06.2025 fixing recovery liability on the petitioners set aside; matter remanded to the State for fresh consideration after hearing both petitioners; writ petition disposed of. ¶18

Smt. Rakhi Lal and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 40474 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Rakhi Lal And Another

¶4

	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Jalaj Singh, Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Jalaj Singh

¶5

Court No. - 35

¶6

(SL No.38)

¶7

HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶8

The present case is being filed by the petitioners who are staff nurses, working in the Common Health Center (CHC) at Pilibhit.

¶9

Undisputedly, the Centers are run by the State Government. The case against the petitioners is that a lady by the name of Poonam, who was pregnant, who was brought to the center for treatment on 05.05.2024, in an advanced stage of pregnancy. However, the petitioners instead of examining and admitting the patient, who was lying outside the hospital, were discussing with other nurses and the attendant of the patient for a while advised him to go to some higher center for better treatment.

¶10

When the patient was not attended, the applicant took his wife to nursing home where no treatment was given to her and while she was being taken home and later on, she died on account of want of medical aid. The husband of the deceased moved a complaint before the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, which took cognizance in the matter, inquired into it and passed an order against the State Government dated 09.01.2025 by which the State was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and was given the liberty of recovering the same from the guilty persons.

¶11

Pursuant to the said liberty, an order was passed on 04.06.2025,

¶12

WRIC No. 40474 of 2025

¶13

¶14

whereby it was decided that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- be recovered from the two petitioners herein and thereafter on 03.07.2025, the petitioners have been intimated to deposit the said amount with the State within one month of the order dated 03.07.2025.

¶15

It is relevant to mention here that these petitioners were never heard by the State Human Rights Commission and neither were they ever given an opportunity to place their case before the two orders mentioned hereinabove were passed. Though, the opportunity was given subsequently on 03.09.2025, it is relevant to mention that the date on which it was decided by the State to penalize the petitioners herein by order dated 04.06.2025, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to place their case. Besides, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in September, 2025 when the notice was issued to her, the petitioner no.1 was herself pregnant and therefore could not appear before the Authorities to place a case.

¶16

Be that as it may as this Court is of the opinion that before the order fixing the liability on the petitioners on 04.06.2025, the petitioners ought to have been heard and their case be taken into consideration. Failure to do so have violated the natural justice of being heard before the liability was fixed on them.

¶17

Under the circumstances, the order dated 04.06.2025 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the State for consideration afresh after hearing both the petitioners.

¶18

With the above, the petition stands disposed of .

¶19

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

¶20

November 26, 2025 Shubham Arya

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Rakhi Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rakhi Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Similar cases

Jalal Uddin and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Khalid vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Son Dev Sharma vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Aman Rajpoot vs State of Up and 5 Others

Praveen Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sarita vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others