Petitioner, a superannuated Head Master, sought pension revision under 6th Pay Commission. Court disposed of the writ petition by referring to an identical proceeding in Rajendra Singh, directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Finance and Accounts Officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24052 of 2018
Petitioner :- Lalli Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The petitioner has been superannuated on 30.06.1997 from the post of Head Master of Junior High School, Virampur, District Etawah.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner is getting pension, is now entitled for revision of pension in the light of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, 2006 and the Government Orders dated 16.9.2009, 28.2.2011 and 14.7.2014. The petitioner has made an application raising his grievance before respondents, vide representation dated 04.06.2017.
It is further contended that Chief Treasurar, District Etawah had also written to the second respondent, vide letter dated 25.07 2018 that in respect of retired teachers benefit of the Government Orders passed from time to time should be considered in revision of pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court, the order dated 2.11.2018 passed in Writ - A No. 23322 of 2018 in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of UP and 2 Others , in which identical controversy was involved and this Court has passed the following order :-
"5. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending any further or calling for counter affidavit, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observation :-
(i) the petitioner may file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3 - Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, District- Etawah within a period of two weeks from today;
(ii) in the event the said respondent is of prima facie view that the representation/application deserves to be rejected, he may issue a prior show cause notice to the petitioner specifying the points on which the petitioner's representation is proposed to be rejected within two weeks therefrom;
(iii) the petitioner shall be at liberty to file his final reply to such notice, if
issued, within two weeks and no more from the date of receipt of that notice;
(iv) the respondent no.3 may proceed to hear and decide the same strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of filing of last reply by the petitioner, if any."
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 does not dispute that the controversy involved in the case of Rajendra Singh (Supra) is identical to the present case and, therefore, this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, in terms of the directions as passed in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) as quoted herein above.
Order Date :- 14.11.2018 Akram
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to revision of pension in light of 6th Pay Commission recommendations and Government Orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Singh v. State of UP and 2 OthersDistinguished¶8
Writ - A No. 23322 of 2018 Rajendra Singh v. State of UP and 2 Others
Lalli Devi
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
