Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40680 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Ranjita Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Mr. Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Manohar, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
In view of the order proposed to be passed in the writ petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.4.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer :-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under dying harness rules in place of her mother namely Smt. Aruna Srivastava."
Vide order dated 31.8.2016 counter affidavit was called for but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has confined his relief in the present case only to the extent that authority concerned be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner.
The facts in brief as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is married daughter solely dependant on her mother. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Aruna Srivastava, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary Section of B. P. Gupta Balika Vidyalaya, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, died on 12.4.2010. Being dependant she claimed for her appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules and in this regard she has submitted a representation but till date the authority concerned has not taken any decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgement of this Court passed in Writ C No.60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another) along-with connected matters decided on 4.12.2015 and the judgement passed in Special Appeal No.268 of 2016 (Smt. Uma Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) decided on 12.4.2016.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation ventillating all her grievances before the respondent no.2 along-with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of three months.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Pramod Tripathi