Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

USHA DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Usha Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 45411 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 17720 (13 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the State of U.P.

The petitioner claims that her husband Chandra Pal was a class IV employee in Zila Panchayat, Rampur. He expired on 12.2.2000 while in service. On account of his death the petitioner was absorbed as employee of the Zila Panchayat, Rampur by giving the benefit of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Now the petitioner claims that she is entitle to a family pension and for that purpose she has made representation dated 4.7.2006 to the respondent No. 3 but no action on it has been taken.

Learned Standing counsel points that respondent No. 2 is the authority competent to decide about the admissibility of the family pension to the petitioner and that if the petitioner approaches him, he will consider and decide the matter within a reasonable time.

In view of the above submission, no purpose shall be served in keeping the petition alive. It is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent No. 2 with regard to payment of family pension.

In case such a representation is made by her within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter strictly in accordance with rules. The respondent No. 2 shall consider the relevant rules for the admissibility of the family pension to the petitioner before passing any order.

The petition is disposed of with the above observation.

13.11.2007

SKS(45411-06)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.