Petitioner challenged disability benefit claim. Respondent undertook to resolve the issue within 12 weeks. Court held the writ inventory purpose would not be served as authorities examined the claim. Petition disposed of.
Writ petition disposed of; authorities to communicate reasoned decision within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18720 of 2016
======================================================
Amit Kumar, son of Mrityuvan Singh, r/o Village Simari, PO Nima Budhaul, PS Amas, District Gaya
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
7 21-02-2019
I.A. No. 1 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent
Union of India placing on record their stand that in light of this Court’s earlier order dated 23.1.2019. The issue is being examined by the authorities. The Union of India has prayed for twelve weeks’ time to enable them to resolve the issue arising out of order dated 23.1.2019.
The relevant extract of the order dated 23.1.2019 is being reproduced herein:-
“If there is no consideration till date this Court would observe that the authorities would be well advised to consider his claim in light of Clause 3 d of the report dated 26.6.2013 (Annexure 2) as the same suggest that the petitioner has incurred some injury7
Patna High Court CWJC No.18720 of 2016(7) dt.21-02-2019 2/2
during course of his basic training and his claim of disability in terms of the existing provision was required to be considered.”
This writ petition, in view of the stand taken by the respondent authorities, is being disposed of by recording that the final decision regarding petitioner's claim in light of Clause 3(d) as per report dated 26.6.2013 should be taken by the authorities as per their undertaking within twelve weeks from today and a reasoned and speaking to this extent be communicated to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid development during pendency of the writ petition, since the petitioner’s claim for disability benefits is being looked into by the authorities themselves no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping this writ petition pending.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
SNkumar/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requires continuation when the respondent authorities undertake to decide the petitioner's disability claim within twelve weeks.
Amit Kumar
Union of India
Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chhatisgarh Sector
Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) CRPF Range
The Commandant, 02, CRPF
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
