Mamta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions so that family pension may be granted to the petitioner as her parents, who were working with the respondent no.3 died-in-harness.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

At the very outset, the Court posed a question as to why this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be entertained by this Court in view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy in the State Public Services Tribunal as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. To it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for family pension. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner, which she would make within one week.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would fairly submits that if given, the respondent no.3 would decide the representation within four weeks.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that directions may be issued for consideration of the representation that may be filed by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation to respondent no.3 within a period of one week from today. Once such representation is received, respondent no.3 shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the existing Rules, within a period of next four weeks.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

In case, the dispute is still not resolved, even after considering of the representation, any writ petition that may be filed in future, has to first satisfy that alternate efficacious remedy cannot be availed in the State Public Services Tribunal. Any further writ petition, on the subject shall not be entertained merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.