AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 264 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to consider his claim for financial assistance as per Government notification dated 04.01.2024.
On 17.02.2026, the following order was passed:-
“Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner’s spouse died on 30.01.2024 and he submitted an application on 05.05.2024 for grant of financial assistance under the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Antyodaya Parivar Suraksha Yojana (DAYALU). Counsel submits that the application has been rejected vide impugned order, Annexure P-2, on the ground that it has been filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. Counsel asserts that while rejecting the application, competent authority has not passed an order assigning reasons for rejection and the “rejected” status of the application has been downloaded from the portal of Haryana Parivar Suraksha Nyas.
Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the official respondents.
On asking of Court, Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, puts in appearance on their behalf. He requests for short accommodation to pass and produce a copy of the speaking order.
List on 17.03.2026.”
Learned State counsel during the course of hearing produced order dated 16.03.2026 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Haryana Parivar Suraksha Nyas, Haryana whereby petitioner’s claim has been rejected
Faced with the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail remedies, as permissible by law, against the said order.
Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.
Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.