Allahabad High Court
Anita Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 11 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2832
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15697 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Madan Lal Srivastava Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Madan Lal Srivastav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6.
The instant petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to comply with the award/orders dated 20.12.2011, 18.4.2012 and 26.12.2012 under Section 31 of the Employee's Compensation Act. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing respondent No.4 to ensure payment of compensation amount to the petitioner. The petitioner is widow of Om Narayan Singh, on whose death, the orders referred to above were passed in proceedings under Section 31 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
The grievance urged in the instant petition is that despite issuance of recovery certificates dated 18.4.2012 and 26.12.2012 by respondent No.4, the State respondent namely respondents 2 and 3 have failed to recover the amount.
This Court entertained the petition and required the Collector, Sonbhadra to file his personal affidavit and show cause as to why he could not recover the amount due under the recovery certificates dated 18.4.2012 and 26.12.2012.
In compliance of the above order, the Collector, Sonbhadra has filed his personal affidavit stating that an amount of Rs.4,88,048/- was recovered from respondent No.5 and it was deposited with respondent No.4 on 15.5.2019 through demand draft No.06818 dated 14.5.2019.
On 15.10.2019, this Court passed the following order :-
"Heard Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing alongwith Sri Saurabh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 filed by Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel is taken on record.
Rejoinder affidavit in response to the aforesaid counter affidavit is already on record.
In terms of earlier order dated 20.05.2019 the counsel for respondent no.5 was directed to apprise the Court about the orders passed on the appeal filed by the said respondent under Section 30 of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
The counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 indicates that against the order dated 20.12.2011 passed in Case No.WC-10 of 2011, First Appeal From Order Defective No.613 of 2019 has been filed in which an order has been passed on the delay condonation application on 21.05.2019 directing issuance of notice to the respondent.
Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 and 6 states that no orders have been passed thereafter in the appeal and the delay condonation application still remains pending.
Counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to dispute the fact that there is no impediment with regard to the release of the amount which is said to have been recovered and deposited before the Employee's Commissioner on 15.05.2019, pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2011 passed in Case No.WC-10 of 2011.
Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents pray for two weeks' time to obtain further instructions.
As prayed, list after two weeks."
Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for release of the amount which is in deposit with the Employees Compensation Commissioner i.e. respondent No.4 herein.
It is urged that since there is no stay of orders passed in W.C. No.10 of 2011, therefore, there is no impediment in release of the amount in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 is not in a position to dispute that there is no stay in favour of these respondents. Learned standing counsel states that the amount would be released in favour of the petitioner. They however, submitted that the petitioner be directed to furnish security as First Appeal From Order (Defective) No. 313 of 2019 is still pending at the behest of respondents 4 and 5.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing respondent No.4 to release the amount in deposit with him pursuant to recovery certificates dated 18.4.2012 and 16.12.2012 in favour of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after obtaining security from her other than bank or cash guarantee.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 11.12.2019 skv