Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1703 (ALL)

Aneeta Shrivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2023-07-17

VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Manoj Vasishth learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed notices are not being issued to the fifth and sixth respondents. 3. The case of the writ petitioner that she is the daughter of Vipin Bihari Lal from the first wife Saroj Srivastava who was working as Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology in Handia Post Graduate College, Handia who died-in-harness on 13.02.2020 it is further the case of the writ petitioner that she had espoused her claim through one of the Attorney Mr. Sanjeev Kumar. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that without taking any no objection from the writ petitioner the provident fund amount has been released in favour of the sixth respondent. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that aforesaid action is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to release the share of the petitioner in the provident fund of her late father. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the issues which are being sought to be raised by the writ petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings as in this regard the writ petitioner may approach before the second respondent, Director, Directorate of Higher Education Uttar Pradesh Prayagraj who shall advert to the claim of the writ petitioner. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also makes a submission that he is not proposing to file any response to the writ petition. 5. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the second respondent who shall along with the self attested copy of the writ petition who shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Since neither the fifth respondent nor the sixth respondent is before this Court though they have been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition thus, notices be issued to them to seek their reply and version. Since neither the fifth respondent nor the sixth respondent is before this Court though they have been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition thus, notices be issued to them to seek their reply and version. The aforesaid exercise is to be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. It is further clarified that this Court is in dark regarding the competing claims, if any, of others and thus the second respondent shall act strictly in accordance with law and in case it comes to the opinion that it is not the competent authority to decide the claim then it shall transmit the paper to the competent authority who shall inform the petitioner and the other affected parties in advance in writing so as to enable them to put forward their stand and in case further document is required then the same shall be furnished. 6. Needless to point out that the passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter.