Disposed

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019WRIA/14757/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning pending retiral dues after the petitioner's retirement, this single judge Court granted liberty to implead an additional respondent and directed him to process the pension papers and determine other dues within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 5 to examine petitioner's pension papers and pass orders on other retiral dues within three months.

Brijesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14757 of 2005 Petitioner :- Brijesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Chand appearing for the BSA.

¶4

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶5

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi prays for and is granted liberty during the course of the day to implead the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Jhansi Region, Jhansi as respondent no. 5 in this writ petition.

¶6

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner against his suspension order dated 9.11.2014 and the order of recovery dated 17.2.2005 passed by the District Magistrate without conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

¶7

This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 7.3.2005 had passed a detailed order staying recovery proceedings till the next date of listing. However, it was left open to the authorities concerned to continue with disciplinary proceedings as contemplated in the suspension order dated 9.11.2004 and bring the same to their logical end.

¶8

In pursuance of the order dated 7.3.2005 although recovery was not made by the respondents, they also did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as contemplated in the suspension order. No chargesheet was ever issued to him. No Inquiry Officer was appointed.

¶9

Rather, the BSA passed an order on 28.4.2012 as brought on record by supplementary affidavit filed toda,y reinstated the petitioner. The petitioner has retired on 31.3.2018. Now his retiral dues alone

¶10

remain to be paid.

¶11

The BSA has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned in paragraph 13 that G.P.F. amount of Rs. 4,93,664/- has been paid to the petitioner and his pension papers have been sent to the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Jhansi Region, Jhansi by the Account Officer in the office of the BSA, Jalaun by letter dated 22.2.2018. The appropriate action in the matter can now be taken only by the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Jhansi Region, Jhansi.

¶12

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the newly impleaded respondent no. 5 to examine the pension papers submitted by the Accounts Officer in the office of the BSA, Jalaun and pass appropriate orders with regard to other retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 Arif

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Kapileshwar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Verma Vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Mumbai, and 4 Others

Mobeen Khatoon Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Jameel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shahanshah Husain Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Santosh Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others