Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Indu Bai Thakur vs Secretary Tribal Welfare Department ... on 5 September, 2014

      Smt. Indu Bai Thakur Vs. State of M. P. and others.




                           W. A. No. 44/14
5/09/14
     Shri Atul Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant.
     Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
     Having heard learned learned counsel for the parties,
we are of the considered view that the benefit accruing to
the petitioner by virtue of the order passed in the case of
Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of M. P. and others O. A. No.
2745/89 cannot be denied only because petitioner's husband
did not claim the benefit during his life-time. The benefit of
Madhukant Yadu has been granted throughout the state and
even after death of the employee concerned, in many cases,
the benefit has been extended to the legal heirs.
     Keeping in view the aforesaid, we consider it
appropriate to grant the benefit to the appellant also atleast
to the extent of consideration of his case.
     Accordingly, we quash the order passed on 7.01.14 in
W. P. No. 130/14 (s) and issue the following directions :-
                On the petitioner's filing a certified
          copy of this order along with the relevant
          documents, the State Govt. or the competent
          authority of the State Govt. shall consider and
          decide the claim of the petitioner in the light
          of   the   law   laid   down   in   the   case    of
          Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of M. P. and
          others O. A. No. 2745/89 and Smt. Usha
          Ranawat & others Vs. State of M. P. and
          others W. A. No. 346/08 by a speaking order
          within a period of three months thereof.          In
       Smt. Indu Bai Thakur Vs. State of M. P. and others.




         case, respondents feel that petitioner is not

entitled for the benefit, it shall be incumbent for the respondents to record reasons for the same and communicate it to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.



(Rajendra Menon)                                   (Anil Sharma)
  JUDGE                                                JUDGE
Vy*