VIDYA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. FOREST DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/11952/2025 · 2025-10-09
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168612 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168612 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11952 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for grant of first Assured Career Progression benefits to deceased husband Uma Shankar Mishra in terms of Government Order dated 05.11.2014 from the date when it became dues alongwith all consequential benefits. Further prayer for revision of pay-scale and arrears of ACPs with consequential benefits has also been sought. 3. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertain-ability of this petition in view of the fact that petitioner's late husband superannuated from service in the year 2017 and subsequently passed away in the year 2022 but did not file any such claim either before department or before any of competent Court during his life time. 4. In rebuttal thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grant of ACP to her late husband was required to be done at the end of department itself without any claim having been required to be filed. It is also submitted that even otherwise it would constitute a recurring cause of action. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Madhav Shukla, Satyam Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vidya Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the aspect of grant of first ACP to the husband of petitioner would have been required to be done by the department itself and would constitute a recurring cause of action. 6. Since consideration of petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, without entering into merits of the case, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party No. 3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Gonda or any competent authority. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
October 9, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 11952 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench