Allahabad High Court
SMT. ARTI SONKAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is dismissed, upholding the lower court's direction to pay terminal dues to the nominee, subject to the pending succession proceedings.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court heard an appeal by Smt. Arti Sonkar and another against the State of U.P. and others concerning succession and payment of terminal dues of the deceased employee Kripa Shankar. The court noted that the original petitioner‑respondent is alleged to be the second wife of the deceased, making succession proceedings pending, and therefore the lower court's direction to decide the claim for compassionate appointment was improper, though no challenge was raised on that point. The appeal also contested the lower court's order directing payment of terminal dues to the private respondent‑appellant, who was nominated in the service records, despite the absence of a succession certificate. The High Court held that the direction to pay dues to the nominee should stand, subject to the outcome of the pending succession suit, and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appellate court did not interfere with the lower court’s order regarding the nominee’s entitlement.
Issues considered
- Whether the lower court erred in directing a decision on the claim for compassionate appointment while succession proceedings are pending.
- Whether terminal dues can be paid to the nominee in the service records in the absence of a succession certificate.
- Whether the appellate court should interfere with the lower court's order on payment of dues.
Subjects
- succession
- terminal dues
- nomination
- compassionate appointment
- service records
- pending succession proceedings
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 938 of 2025
Smt. Arti Sonkar And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Ojha, Mahesh Kumar
Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Shankar Pandey, Raj Mohan
Saggi, Vaibhav Tripathi
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Dubey learned counsel for the private
respondent-appellant, Sri Ankit Gaur learned Standing Counsel for the
State, Sri Jai Shankar Pandey learned counsel for the original petitioner-
respondent and Sri Vaibhav Tripathi learned counsel for respondent Nos.
3 and 4.
2. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the
record, we find no occasion to interfere with the order dated 01.09.2025
passed by learned single judge in Shivam Sonkar and Another Vs. State
of U.P. and Others, 2025:AHC:152838, to the extent, it is the claim of the
private respondent-appellant that the original petitioner-respondent is the
second wife of the deceased employee Kripa Shankar. In that fact
situation, the Succession proceedings are pending. Therefore, the
directions issued by the learned single judge in paragraph-33 of the
impugned order, is not correct. However, no challenge has been pressed
to the direction to decide the claim for compassionate appointment.
3. As to the specific objection being pressed in this appeal with respect to
payment of terminal dues to the private respondents, in face of
nomination existing in favour of the private respondent in the service
records of the said Kripa Shankar and in absence of any Succession
Certificate issued in favour of the present appellant, the direction issued
by the learned single judge for payment of the terminal dues to the
SPLA No. 938 of 2025
2
nominee also call for no interference.
4. Needless to add, any payment made shall abide by the outcome of the
succession proceedings that are already pending between the parties.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
April 2, 2026
Faraz
Digitally signed by :-
FARAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…