Disposed

Prem Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019WRIA/1526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition by referring to a similar decision. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks, upon which the respondent must ensure payment of admissible dues within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to petitioner to file fresh representation and respondent to pay admissible dues within three months.

Prem Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1526 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5.

¶6

It is admitted between the parties that identical controversy has already been decided by this Court in Writ A No.26083 of 2018, Amar Singh Supyal Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. The order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶7

"1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record of the case.

¶8

2. It is the case of petitioner that he retired from the post of Head Clerk on 31.10.2016. there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. He has completed all formalities and has also been given No Dues Certificate. Yet, he has not been paid is retiral dues. He has made several representations, of which the last one was made on 02.11.2018. A copy of the said representation has been filed as Annexure - 4 to the writ petition.

¶9

3. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent, on the basis of instructions, says that the respondents are facing financial crisis and are trying to pay all the retiral dues as and when funds are available. However, such payments are made to those employees who retired earlier first, before being paid to employees like the petitioner who retired only in 2017.

¶10

4. Be that as it may, the facts as mentioned in the writ petition really make out a case for showing interference. The respondents are the statutorily bound to pay all retiral dues to their employees if no adverse material is found against them within a time bound period.

¶11

5. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to ensure that the petitioner's dues are admissible to him and be paid to him within a period of three months from the production of certified copy of this order before him."

¶12

In so far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner retired from the post of Pump Operator on 31.1.2016. After his retirement no dues certificate was also granted in favour of the petitioner and for the payment of post retirement dues petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.8.2017, annexure 3 to the writ petition. The aforesaid representation is addressed to the respondent no.5/The Executive Engineer, Pratham

¶13

Prokalp Khand, U.P. Jal Nigam, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation along-with certified copy of this order before the respondent no.5 within a period of three weeks from today. In case such representation is made, the respondent no.5 is directed to ensure that the petitioner's dues, which are admissible to him, be paid within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along-with fresh representation. Order Date :- 29.1.2019

¶15

Pramod Tripathi

Prem Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Rajeshwari Saraswat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Praveena Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Narayan Lal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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