Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 117481 (ALL)

LAJJAWATI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME SECY. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/614/2025 · 2025-01-21

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3750 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 614 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lajjawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Secy. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Singh,Ajay Kumar Shukla,Anupesh Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Soni,Rajmani Yadava,Uma Shanker Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that husband of the petitioner was working in the Police department and died in harness on 10.01.1996 while working on the post of Ardali-cum Peon and after his death the family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner who is widow of the deceased government servant which is evident from the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 10.04.1997. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was receiving pension till 2012 when it was suddenly stopped and no cogent reason seems to have been given by the petitioner for delay in filing of the present writ petition but considering the fact that family pension is mandatory all along and hence a petition in this regard would be entertainable. 4. In this regard, it has been submitted that petitioner has given a representation dated 03.10.2024 to the respondent which is pending consideration and has not been decided so far. 5. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure No. 2) in a time bound manner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel does not object if a direction is issued to respondent for expeditious disposal of the representation preferred by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure No. 2) expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench