Smt. Kamla Devi vs Secretary Basic Education U.P. ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 106 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9456 of 2004
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Kamla Devi
 
Respondent :- Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt. Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.B. Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.R. Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing Restoration Application.

2. Heard.

3. Cause shown for delay in filing restoration application is sufficient.

4. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned.

5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

Order Date :- 24.4.2015

Ashish Pd.

(Delay Condonation Application No. 314871 of 2014)

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9456 of 2004

Petitioner :- Smt. Kamla Devi

Respondent :- Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt. Lucknow And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- A.B. Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.R. Maurya

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. This is an application seeking restoration of writ petition after recall of order dated 9.4.2014 whereby writ petition was dismissed on merits, though in absence of counsel for the petitioner.

2. Cause shown for non appearance is sufficient.

3. Order dated 9.4.2014 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

4. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned.

5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

Order Date :- 24.4.2015

Ashish Pd.

(Restoration Application No. 314869 of 2014)

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9456 of 2004

Petitioner :- Smt. Kamla Devi

Respondent :- Secretary Basic Education U.P. Govt. Lucknow And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- A.B. Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.R. Maurya

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Order dated 9.4.2014 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Restoration Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number.

2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this writ petition  at this stage.

3. Heard Sri A.B.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

4. It is contended that petitioner had applied for family pension, which was initially granted, but, thereafter family pension of the petitioner was stopped, which order is under challenge. 

5. The question as to why pension was stopped, in my view, requires factual investigation and, therefore, at the first instance, it should be looked into by competent authority in the respondents' Department.

6. This writ petition is disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate representation ventilating his grievance including necessary facts annexing all the requisite documents within two months from today along with certified copy of this order.  In case such  representation is made, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order thereon within two months thereafter.

Order Date :- 24.4.2015

Ashish Pd.