Dismissed

Dewanand Rawat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2019SPLAD/1112/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court Special Appeal Bench held that the Government Order dated 7th April 2017 limits loan waiver to Rs. 1 lakh. Finding no manifest error in the Single Judge's judgment, the Special Appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed. Benefit limited to Rs. 1 lakh under Govt. Order dated 7.4.2017 ruled to be correct.

Dewanand Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1112 of 2019 Appellant :- Dewanand Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

In Ref.: Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 1 of 2019.

¶7

Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 states that he does not propose to file written objection to this application. Court may examine the matter and consider genuineness of the explanation furnished by appellant in causing delay in filing appeal. In case it is satisfied, the Court may pass appropriate order.

¶8

We find that explanation given by applicant-appellant in filing this appeal with some delay is satisfactory. Therefore, delay in filing appeal is condoned.

¶9

This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶10

Order Date :- 18.12.2019 YK

¶11

¶12

Court No. - 34

¶13

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1112 of 2019

¶14

Appellant :- Dewanand Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi

¶15

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶16

Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶17

This Intra-Court appeal under Chapter-VIII, Rule V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has arisen from judgment and order dated 24th September, 2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 30649 of 2019 whereby aforesaid writ petition filed by petitionerappellant has been dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for appellant contends that benefit of only Rs. One lakh has been given though appellant is entitled for higher amount. But having perused the Government Order dated 7th April, 2017, which provides for grant of redemption, we find that maximum waiver is only up to Rs. one Lakh. For ready reference paragraph-1 of Government Order dated 7^th April, 2017, which is relevant for the controversy in hand is reproduced herein-below:

¶19

Þ1- izns'k ds lHkh y?kq rFkk lhekUr d"kdksa ds fnukad 31 ekpZ 2016 rd fy;s x;s Qlyh _.kksa ¼,u0ih0,0 _.kksa dks NksMdj½ ds lkis{k foRrh; o"kZ 2016&17 esa muds }kjk fd;s x;s izfrHkqxrku dks lek;ksftr djus ds mijkUr vo'ks"k _.k dh /kujkf'k :0 1]00]000@& dh lhek rd ekQ dj nh tk;A ,u0ih0,0 _.kksa dks ,deq'r lek/kku ¼vks0Vh0,l0½ ds vUrxZr vkxkeh o"kksZa esa jkT; ljdkj dh foRrh; lgk;rk ls jkbV vkWQ djus gsrq foRrh; lgk;rk dh /kujkf'k dk vUrj.k y?kq ,oa lhekUr d"kdksa Qlyh _.k [kkrksa esa cSadksa ds vfUre lEijhf{kr ys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k

¶20

¶21

tk,xkAß

¶22

“1. Against the crop loans (except for NPA loans) taken by all small and marginal farmers of the State by March 31, 2016, the outstanding amount, after adjusting the repayments made by them in the financial year 2016-17, may be waived off up to the limit of Rs.1,00,000/-. To write off the NPA loans under the One Time settlement (OTS) in the coming years with the help of financial aid by the State Government, the transfer of amounts as financial aid shall be carried out on the basis of final audit of the bank accounts of small and marginal farmers.”

¶23

When questioned, learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that benefit of Rs.1 Lakh pursuant to aforesaid Government Order dated 7^th April, 2017 has already been given to appellant.

¶24

In the circumstances, we do not find any manifest error in the judgement of learned Single Judge warranting interference.

¶25

Special Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.12.2019 YK

Dewanand Rawat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dewanand Rawat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Transport Deptt. Civil Sec.andORS

Smt. Yashoda Rani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar Bhati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Murarri Vs Sangeeta

Phoolmati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dheerendra Kumar Vs Seema