Saroj Bala vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Addl. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 19717 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8671 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Saroj Bala
 
Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Thru. Panchayat And Others.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nimish Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

Heard Shri Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the payment of compensation in terms of the Government Order dated 01.06.2021 according to which an employee who was sent on election duty during panchayat election held in the year 2021 and died of Covid-19 having contracted the same during election duty, the dependents were entitled to compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs.

The case of the petitioner is that her husband being a government employee was sent on election duty as P-3 w.e.f. 26.4.2021. The petitioner's husband is said to have attended election duty on 26.4.2021 and regularly thereafter by making necessary inspections of the polling booths. The petitioner's husband was diagnosed with Covid-19 on 22.05.2021 whereafter he was admitted in the hospital. The petitioner's husband under the medical care of the State died on 15.08.2021. It is in these circumstances that a claim was instituted before the State authorities but the same has not been redressed till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a similar controversy came up before this Court in a bunch of writ petitions and the leading case being Writ-C No.28249 of 2021; 'Kusum Lata Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others', wherein all these aspects of the matter have been considered and the dependents of the respective families have been granted the benefit of compensation. The present case in the light of the facts narrated above is also squarely covered under the judgment passed by this Court. The petitioner in the light of the judgment referred to hereinabove has also made a representation for release of compensation as contained in Annexure No. 05 to the writ petition.

The respective dates noted above prima facie do indicate that the claim of the petitioner is covered in terms of the judgment passed by this Court yet in order to appreciate the facts in its entirety, we leave it open for the authority concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment (supra) and decide the petitioner's claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the representation along with this order. We expect the authority concerned to process the claim of petitioner within the stipulated period provided hereinabove and release the payment without any further delay, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Order Date :- 3.12.2022

S. Shivhare