SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(All) 31852

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SMT. SARITA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
WRIC/13693/2022



Court No. - 40

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13693 of 2022

Petitioner :- Smt. Sarita Devi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pooja Agarwal,Siddharth

Singhal

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

nos.1 and 2 as well as Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel

appearing for respondent no.3, Life Insurance Corporation of

India, Allahabad and perused the record.

The present petition has been preferred seeking the following

reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari

quashing the letter/information given by Life Insurance

Corporation of India dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure No.9 to the

writ Petition).

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding and directing the respondent authorities to pay

the insurance compensation amount to the petitioner under the

Converged Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna and

Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna for the snake biting

death of her husband late Lalchandra within stipulated period

as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) Issue any other writ order or direction in the like nature

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner."

By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been

rejected. Claiming the benefit scheme of Converged Pradhan

Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha

Bima Yojna has been rejected on the ground that the aforesaid

scheme was effected till 31.05.2019 and the deceased

Lalchandra had died on 29.08.2019 i.e. much after the expiry of

the scheme on 31.05.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not disclose the

aforesaid fact that the deceased Lalchandra had died after the

expiry of the scheme.

It is the settled law that benefit of any scheme can be extended

within the four corners of that scheme.

In such view of the matter, we do not find any legal infirmity in

the order impugned herein, the petition is devoid of merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

Zafar

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD

ZAFAR ANSARI

Date: 2022.05.27 10:58:20 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top