Smt Baby vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 October, 2019
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 04.12.2015.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 273 (0.49 seconds)Mithlesh Devi Smt vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 23 September, 2024
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner in this background states that even though in the light of the previous round of litigation, the learned Single Judge in the light of judgment passed by the Division Bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) had directed the District Basic Education Officer to consider the cause of the petitioner before considering the approval for the appointment on the post of Clerk in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30-01-2016 and the said order shall be passed by the District Basic Education Officer after affording opportunity to the fourth respondent.
Smt. Sandhya Yadav vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 27 May, 2021
The judgment in Sunita Bhadauriya (supra) was not noticed by the coordinate Bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava(supra), which took a contrary view.
Arti Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 July, 2021
In this case the mother of the petitioner late Smt. Pushpa Devi was working on the post of Assistant Teacher. The mother of the petitioner died in harness on 2.10.2016. The petitioner had made a claim for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness consequent to the death of her mother. The claim of the petitioner has never been redressed by the respondent authority which is in teeth of law laid down in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra) and Neha Srivastava (supra).
Rekha Devi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 2 December, 2022
The petitioner-appellant sought compassionate appointment being a divorced daughter. The application was submitted within the period given under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974. She was denied compassionate appointment with reference to the definition of 'family' given under Rules 1974. The definition of 'family' was including only unmarried daughter. The petitioner was married but later on divorced. The fact now remains that married as well as unmarried daughter can claim appointment under Rule 1974. It is not only in reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) but pursuant to the amended Rules. The Full Bench judgment of this Court would not apply to this case and otherwise the issue in reference to the divorced daughter was kept open. Since the Rules defining the family has been struck down to the extent of use of word 'unmarried', the petitioner is thus entitled to consideration for her appointment on compassionate ground.
Smt. Sana Siraj vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 13 January, 2020
In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2016(1) AWC 1068 decided on 4.12.2015. At the same time, so far as claim of the children with second wife, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been urged that they would be entitled to equal shares in family pension, gratuity etc. but so far as the compassionate employment is concerned, in case, financial status of the petitioner is still miserable, the Authority can process her application for compassionate employment independently in accordance with law.
Smt Chandrama Devi vs General Manager, N E Rly on 3 February, 2023
8. I am unable to accept the contention raised by learned
counsel for the respondents. From the pleadings and the
arguments before me, the only dispute between the parties is
regarding the status of the married daughter and whether she is
entitled to get compassionate appointment after the death of her
parents. This problem was clearly raised and resolved vide a
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Vimla Srivastava Vs
State of U.P. and others (supra). The only relevant question
before the Court was whether the married daughter is entitled for
appointment on compassionate ground or not. The Court held as
under:-
Seema Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Secondary ... on 16 March, 2020
7. When the impugned order dated 03.07.2019 is seen in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Neha Srivastava (supra) what clearly comes out is that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of married daughter not being included in the definition of family as defined in Rule 2(c) of 1974 Rules is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Smt. Neetu @ Nitoo vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 November, 2020
In this case the mother of the petitioner Smt late Munni Devi was working on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the Primary Health Centre district, Mathura. The mother of the petitioner died in harness on 23.1.2012. The petitioner had made a claim for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness consequent to the death of her mother. The impugned order dated 23.3.2020 rejected the claim of the petitioner in teeth of law laid down in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra) and Neha Srivastava (supra). The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 23.03.2020, is set aside.
Rita Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 July, 2021
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others (Supra) upon consideration of the relevant provisions for appointment on compassionate ground has recorded as under: