Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2741 UK

       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Writ Petition (S/S) No. 963 of 2021

Smt. Shakuntala Devi                                         ........... Petitioner

                                          Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                             ........ Respondents


Present : Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. Hrishek Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.


                                    JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to count the entire service of daily wage and work charge establishment of Late Sohan Singh (Beldar) i.e. 19 years 03 months 23 days for the purpose of computation of pension.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to sanction and pay the family pension of Late Sohan Singh (Beldar in work charge establishment) to the petitioner forthwith, w.e.f. 05.11.2007 along with arrears, as the petitioner being legally wedded wife of Late Sohan Singh.

(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as is deemed proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award full cost of the petition."

2. Heard.

3. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent department in work charge establishment and he died while still in the service, but the pension has not been awarded.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how the instant petition should

be entertained in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

5. At it, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that directions may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure No. 05 to the writ petition).

7. Learned State counsel gives a statement that the representation dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure No. 05 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner would be decided by the respondent concerned within a period of two months from today.

7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent concerned to decide the representation dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure No. 05 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.08.2021 Avneet/