Disposed

Ved Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2018WRIA/10083/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the State could not withhold the entire leave encashment amount. The petitioner was entitled to the balance exceeding Rs. 2,64,820/, subject to final proceedings in W.P. No. 3778 of 2017. The order directed release within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the withheld amount of leave encashment over and above Rs. 2,64,820/- within two months.

Ved Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Income Tax | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10083 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ved Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kulveer Singh,Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 17.4.2018:-

¶6

"The petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of the post retiral dues since after 31.10.2016 with the assertion that he has completed all the formalities for release of the amount of Leave Encashment as well as salary for the month of October, 2016 which has not been paid to the petitioner till date.

¶7

Learned Standing prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instructions and file a short counter affidavit bringing on record the reason for withholding the payments admissible to the petitioner.

¶8

As prayed, put up this matter on 9.5.2018 in the additional cause list".

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities are not justified in withholding the entire amount of leave encashment payable to him inasmuch as even if his earlier petition does not succeed, the authorities would at best, be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,64,820/-. Submission is that withholding of amount, over and above such amount, is arbitrary. Petitioner's other retiral benefits have undisputedly been paid to him.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner's liability would not exceed a sum of Rs. 2,64,820/-.

¶11

From the records, it appears that the petitioner has already retired and the question as to whether petitioner is liable for recovery to the Rs. 2,64,820/- is engaging attention of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3778 of 2017. The respondents, therefore, would not be justified in retaining any amount over and above the said amount, which is sought to be recovered from him. Withholding of entire amount payable towards leave encashment, therefore, would not be justified.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to release the withhold amount of leave encashment, over and

¶13

above the sum of Rs. 2,64,820/-, which amount shall be subject to the ultimate disposal of writ petition No.3778 of 2017. The amount as per the above, shall be released within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.7.2018 n.u.

Ved Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgvijay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Husain Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sajid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Nath Bharatiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Singh and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others