Allowed

Dharmveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 4ORS.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018WRIA/10098/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired government servant contesting a delay in revision of his salary and pension. The court directed the respondent authorities to implement an earlier order dated 17.3.2016 granting him an increment, ensuring payment of dues and interest within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive consequential orders based on the order dated 17.3.2016 within four weeks, with payment of arrears within two months failing which interest at 8% p.a. shall be payable.

Dharmveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4ORS. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10098 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Rupak Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition is by an ex-government servant who has retired in the year 2005 and is contesting for his right for the last 13 year.

¶6

While entertatining the writ petition following orders were passed on 4.5.2018:-

¶7

"Despite directions issued by this Court, learned Standing Counsel has not been able to receive instructions, till date. As a last opportunity, two weeks time is provided to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the respondent no.5, Executive Engineer Nalkoop Khand Amroha, to explain as to why the claim of the petitioner for revision of salary and payment of revised pension including arrears of salary withheld for a long time, has not been processed till date. It is noteworthy that the petitioner had retired in the year 2005 and for a period of 13 years, he is running from one office to another to get his legal claim. Reference has been made to page '58' of the paper book, which is the letter dated 17th March, 2016 issued by the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension to Executive Engineer Nalkoop Khand Amroha, to submit that the claim of the petitioner for grant of increment as was given to juniors has been accepted much earlier.

¶8

As prayed by learned Standing Counsel, put up on 21st May, 2018 in the additional cause list. In case, written instructions are not received by the next date fixed, the Court may take adverse view of the matter."

¶9

After a counter affidavit was filed in the matter, this Court again proceeded to pass following orders on 5.7.2018:-

¶10

"This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to revise the salary of the petitioner by granting him benefit of one increment in promotional grade and also, revise his pension, accordingly.

¶11

The writ petition has been entertained and a counter affidavit has been filed, in which it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that persons, who, admittedly, worked as junior to the petitioner, have been allowed higher salary and pension; while, the petitioner's claim, in that regard, stands discarded. Attention of this Court has been invited to an order passed by the Additional Director (Pension & Jail) dated 08.01.2016, which clearly admits petitioner's grievance and it has been observed that the petitioner's claim needs to be examined and he is entitled to the relief prayed for.

¶13

Prima facie, this Court finds that order dated 08.01.2016 records specific reasons for accepting the petitioner's claim, which has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. The order dated 08.01.2016 has, otherwise, attained finality. If that be so, it is difficult to understand as to how the respondents could file a counter

¶14

affidavit contradicting the previous order passed by a higher authority, i.e., Additional Director. Such issue needs a fresh examination on part of the respondents.

¶15

This matter is, therefore, adjourned by two weeks in order to enable the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit, after examining the aforesaid aspect. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three days thereafter.

¶16

List this case in the additional cause list on 24.07.2018."

¶17

Today, when the matter is taken up learned Standing Counsel submits that the counter affidavit had been filed on the basis of records which existed earlier and that the order dated 17.3.2016 would be implemented by the authorities.

¶18

It is a matter of concern that the authorities although have accepted the claim of petitioner by passing order dated 17.3.2016, but neither its benefit has been extended to the petitioner till date, rather the authorities are filing counter affidavit contradicting the claim itself of the petitioner. This stand of respondents cannot be approved of.

¶19

This petition, therefore, stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.5 to pass consequential orders in light of the directions issued by the Additional Director (Pension and Treasury), Moradabad Region, Moradabad, on 17.3.2016, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The amount, which is found due and payable under such determination, shall be released to petitioner within a further period of two months thereafter, failing which petitioner would be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum. In the event any amount is paid towards interest on account of non release of amount in terms of the order, it shall be open for the State to determine guilt of the officer, who is found responsible for causing delay in release of amount, and to recover the same from his salary.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 Ashok Kr.

Dharmveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 4ORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 4ORS.

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

Suryakant Verma Vs Union of India

Dipu Kumar Ray Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Sanjit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kapil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Yashwant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others