Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated 11th November, 2009 passed by the the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, district Deoriarespondent no.3, filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition by which the residence certificate issued to the petitioner on 23rd July, 2009 has been cancelled on the basis of the complaint made on 9th November, 2009 by one Sanjay Tiwari, respondent no.6. 2. According to the petitioner the complaint was made on 9th November, 2009 and without affording any opportunity to show cause or hearing the order has been passed in haste on 11th November, 2009. The entire exercise has been done within a short span of two days which according to the petitioner itself speaks about the motive. The averment regarding neither issuing any show cause notice nor affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has been made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. 3. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 and Sri Sanjiv Singh has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no.5. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 11th November, 2009, we find that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has mentioned that the complaint was filed by Sri Sanjay Tiwari on 9th November, 2009, an enquiry was conducted on 10th November, 2009 and the impugned order has been passed on 11th November, 2009 whereby the petitioner's residence certificate has been cancelled. It does not mention that any showcause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 5. From a perusal of the order and the averments made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner stands established and the impugned order has been pased in gross violation of principle of equity, fair play and natural justice. The same cannot be sustained which is hereby set aside. The respondent no.3 may proceed in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4006 of 2005 Smt. Raman Pandey & others …Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others …Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.C. Tiwari Sri Akhilesh Kuamr Pandey Sri D.K. Jaiswal Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: Sri H.M.B. Sinha (S.C.)
3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others V. State of U.P. and others 997 C.S.C. Constitution of India-Art-226- Post retirel benefits-claim by second wife on basis of nomination made by deceased employee even the marriage of second wife declared void- in view of law laid down by apex court children of the second wife entitled equally half share with first wife. Held: Para 5 In the present case, daughter of petitioner Priyanka Pandey ( Petitioner no. 1/1), who had filed impleadment application, has also attained majority. But Deepak Pandey ( petitioner no. 1/2 ) son of the deceased with the petitioner- Smt. Raman Pandey is still a minor being 13 years of age, therefore, he is entitled to retirement benefits of the deceased employee particularly in the backdrop that Smt. Raman Pandey had been nominated as wife by the deceased in the service records for receiving his benefits. Case law discussed: [200(1) E.S.C. Page 577 (SC) (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed by Smt. Raman Pandey claiming herself to be wife of deceased employee Jayanti Prasad Pandey. Son of Smt. Savitri Devi claimed appointment on compassionate ground on the basis that Smt. Raman Pandey, the second living wife of the deceased is not entitled to the benefits on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules as she is not within the definition of family therein. In that context, the Court in Writ Petition No. 18397 of 2002, wherein present petitioner- Smt. Raman Pandey was a party as respondent no. 4 and had also filed counter affidavit, held as follows : "In my opinion, If Smt. Raman Pandey is not legally wedded wife and the marriage of Smt. Raman Pandey is void. According to Hindu Marriage Act, she can not claim the benefits to claim and appointment under Dying in Harness because she does not come under the definition of family. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner fully supports the contention of the petitioner." 2. Now by means of this petition, Smt. Raman Pandey claims for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground according to eligibility on any suitable post. This prayer has not been pressed by the counsel for petitioner in the backdrop that Rajesh Kumar Pandey, elder son of the deceased employee has been provided appointment under Dying in Harness Rules pursuant to order passed by the Court in the aforesaid writ petition No. 18397 of 2002. Counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only in respect of prayer no. 2 which is for a writ of mandamus "commanding the opposite parties to make payment of G.P.F., Group insurance and other dues in favour of the petitioner and family pension month to month towards the services rendered by her husband late Jayanti Prasad Pandey on consideration of the fact that she is only nominee of her husband in the service records."
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 75 and 76:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?