Disposed

harendra kumar pandey and 08 others v. the secretary of personnel/karmik and another

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018WRIA/8042/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider the petitioners' claims for absorption and pension benefits based on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar Verma and Others. The matter was resolved with the parties' consent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioners' claim for absorption and benefits in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar Verma.

harendra kumar pandey and 08 others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8042 of 2018 Petitioner :- Harendra Kumar Pandey And 08 Others Respondent :- The Secretary Of Personnel/Karmik And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶4

Learned counsel for the parties contend that the primary issue which falls for consideration was engaging the attention of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of 2010 (Sunil Kumar Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and other connected matters. The Civil Appeals have been decided on 9 September 2015 with the following operative directions:

¶5

"18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no reason that the appellants herein should not reap the benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is directed that they shall be absorbed by the State Government as per their seniority and be given the benefit of increments, within eight weeks hence. Needless to say, they will be entitled to their seniority as per the prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service, he shall get the retiral benefits inclusive of pension.

¶6

19. At this juncture, the question arises as to what amount should be paid towards back wages. In this context, our attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court in contempt proceeding. However, after some debate, learned counsel for the appellants left it to the discretion of this Court. Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State vehemently opposed with regard to grant of any back wages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on this score and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the cause of justice would be best sub-served if each of the appellant is paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so directed. It shall be computed as per our directions issued hereinbefore within a period of twelve weeks hence and be paid to the appellants."

¶7

It is accordingly prayed that the claim of the petitioners be considered by the respondents afresh and in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the second respondent shall be the appropriate authority to look into the claims of the petitioners and examine their entitlements in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeals referred to above.

¶9

Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of 2010 (Sunil Kumar Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) .

¶10

The above exercise be undertaken and concluded by the second respondent expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.3.2018/Jaideep/-

harendra kumar pandey and 08 others v. the secretary of personnel/karmik and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

harendra kumar pandey and 08 others v. the secretary of personnel/karmik and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Lucknow and Another

Jaipal Singh Vs Prescribed Authority/ City Magistrate and 2 Others

Kamala Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Tripathi Vs State of up and others

uma shankar singh Vs State of U.P. and 02 others

Govind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others