Allowed

Shaukat Ali Kadri v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018WRIA/43251/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to pay arrears of pension and interest w.e.f. 1.11.1995. Court quashed an order held to be partially incompetent and directed respondent to pay arrears w.e.f. 20.7.1996 with 18% interest within one month.

What did the court decide?

Pension is being processed; Director directed to ensure payment within one month. Arrears payable w.e.f. 20.7.1996 with 18% interest from date of presentation of certified copy.

Shaukat Ali Kadri Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43251 of 1999

¶3

Petitioner :- Shaukat Ali Kadri Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam,Ikram Ahmad,Rajesh Dwivedi,Satish Dwivedi,Sayed Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction commanding the respondents to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st November, 1995 along with 24% interest on the amount till the date of actual payment.

¶7

The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Madarsa Samshul Uloom, Ghantaghar, Badaun w.e.f., 1.9.1969 and he was retired on 30.06.1995 after completion of 60 years of service. Initially a pension of Rs.489/was sanctioned to the petitioner by order dated 25.06.1996 passed by District Basic Education officer, Badaun and pension was paid to him from 01.07.1995 to 20.07.1996 and thereafter his pension was stopped without assigning any reason or passing any order against the petitioner on his repeated representations. An order dated 06.06.2001 was passed by the Director, Minority Welfare Directorate, U.P. Lucknow stating that the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun was not competent to sanction the pension of the petitioner rather the competent authority was the Regional Assistant Director of Education.

¶8

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government / respondent nos.2 and 3, it was stated that the petitioner was appointed on 01.09.1989 and he worked up to 30.06.1995, therefore, in view of the fact that his services were less than the period of 10 years he was not entitled to sanction and grant of any pension. The pension granted to him earlier was by mistake and it has been subsequently corrected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner replied that in the year 1987 he was retired from service illegally and thereafter he instituted Original Suit No.307 of 1987 before the Competent Civil Court and by the decree dated 27.05.1992 passed by the IInd Additional Munsiff, Badaun a declaration was made in his favour that he is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. Thereafter a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30324 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner before this Court praying for his arrears of salary from 09.11.1987 onwards which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 31.03.1994. 1969 has been mentioned as date of appointment of the petitoner by this Court in its order dated 31.03.1994.

¶10

In view of the above fact, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1969 and not in the year 1989 as wrongly averred in the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

A counter affidavit dated 17.12.1999 was filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4, wherein it has been stated that pension was sanctioned to the petitoner by the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun, whereas the Competent Authority for this purpose was the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) as per Government Order dated 23.02.1994. The dispute regarding the pension of the petitioner is under serious consideration of the authorities and his pension is being processed and is likely to be finalized very shortly. Despite such an averment in the counter affidavit filed in the year 1999, the pension of the petitioner has not been paid till date.

¶12

In view of the above facts emerging from the record, showing callous disregard for human life and deprivation of the petitioner from his rightful claim of pension after retirement from service, the impugned order dated 06.06.2001 passed by respondent no.2, Director Minority Welfare Department of Uttar Pradesh., Lucknow is hereby quashed. The Director Minority Welfare Department of Uttar Pradesh is directed to ensure the payment of pension to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. His arrears of pension shall be paid within the same period w.e.f., 20.7.1996 along with 18% interest from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

Writ petition stands allowed.

¶14

No order as to costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.3.2018 SS

Shaukat Ali Kadri v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukat Ali Kadri v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Jai Pratap Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalit Kumar Garg Vs Committee of Management and Another

Hridhya Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Others

Birendra Pandey Vs State of U.P.and Another

Raj Kumar Lal Vs Lekhadhikari and Others

Raj Kumar Lal Vs Vitt Evam Lekhadhikari and Others