Allowed

Ram Bharose v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2018WRIA/4641/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a direction be issued to the Finance & Account Officer to decide the petitioner's representation for release of post-retiral benefits, GPF, insurance, and pension with 12% interest on delayed payment within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within two months for release of post-retiral benefits with 12% interest.

Ram Bharose Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4641 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Bharose Respondent :- The State Of Uttar Pradesh Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Nayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Chandra Mani Yadav, holding brief of Shri Rajeev Nayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 as well as Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava for the respondent nos. 2 and 2.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction to the third respondent i.e. Finance & Account Officer, Basic Education, Etah to release his retiral benefits i.e. GPF, insurance amount and pension with arrears alongwith 12% interest on the delayed payment.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Gate Keeper in Junior High School Malawan, Block Sakeet, District Etah. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2017 but his post retiral benefits have not been paid to him. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that his last representation dated 1.1.2018 may be considered by the appropriate authority.

¶7

Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has no objection to the said prayer.

¶8

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶9

It is a trite law that the post retiral benefits of an employee should be paid without any delay and if there is any laxity in the payment of post retiral benefits of any employee, he/she shall be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356, and Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 9 SCC 687.

¶10

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the third respondent to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a period of two months from the

¶11

date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.2.2018 RKP

Ram Bharose v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharose v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Kishan Junior High School Sherpur Khader, Muzaffarnagar through Its Manager, Babu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Janta Junior High School Karhera, Muzaffarnagar, through Its Manager Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arbind Kumar Singh and 1 Other Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others

Sahab Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Riyasat Ali Khan Vs State of U.P.