Dismissed

Smt. Bhagwan Dei v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019WRIA/40515/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the writ petition seeking payment of retiral dues was infructuous because the petitioner refused to sign the required pension papers, preventing the completion of formalities for disbursement. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner failed to execute requisite formalities.

Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40515 of 2005 Petitioner :- Smt. Bhagwan Dei Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdev Singh,Jagdish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Chandra

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

The petitioner was engaged as Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandausi, District Moradabad on 1.1.1961 and retired on 30.1.2004 after putting in more than 43 years of service. The petitioner however was not paid her retiral dues even after repeated representation and therefore she approached this Court by filing the writ petition and praying for a mandamus to the respondents to pay her retiral dues to her expeditiously.

¶5

It has been specifically stated in the writ petition that there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against her at the time of her retirement.

¶6

In the counter affidavit filed on 18.7.2005 by Sri Prem Chandra appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad, Chandausi, Moradabad, It has been admitted that the petitioner completed about 42 years of service and retired on 30.10.2004, and that the amount of pension for all employees of non Centralised Cadre has been fixed by the Rules as Rs. 1,000/- per month, apart from Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Group Insurance which is payable.

¶7

In paragraph 8, the following facts have been mentioned:-

¶8

"That the contents of para 8 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted. There is no arrears of the salary payable to the petitioner. The other amounts mentioned by her in para under reply are exhorbitent and not correct. So far as Leave Encashment amount is concerned it will be about Rs. 31488/-. The Provident Fund amount will be about Rs. 75802.82/along with interest. The amount of Gratuity will be determined by the concerned authority after the petitioner will complete the formalities by filing up and signing the pension papers. The amount of the pension will only be released after it is approved by the Additional Director, Local

¶9

Fund Account and thereafter sanctioned by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division. Since the petitioner in spite of repeated information and requested did not sign the same, as such formalities could not be completed and in absence thereof payment is not liable to be made."

¶10

It has also been submitted in paragraph 11 thus:-

¶11

"That after refusing to sign the pension papers as well as the Revenue stamp in persuance of the letter dated 9.6.2005 / 15.6.2005, when she attended the office on 20.6.2005, she sent a registered letter which was received on 22.6.2005 with false allegations of demanding Rs. 50/- for photostat expenses and sought certain information. The said letter was replied through letter dated 1.7.2005 and she was informed that she refused to complete the pension papers and her signatures / thumb impression was required on the Revenue stamps. It was also informed that she should attend the office to get completed the pension papers so that all the dues may be released as early as possible. A photocopy of the letter dated 9.6.2005 and 1.7.2005 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 to this affidavit respectively."

¶12

It is evident that the matter is old and perhaps the petitioner after filing of the counter affidavit has approached the Authorities concerned for payment of her remaining retiral dues.

¶13

The writ petition has become infructuous. It is dismissed as such.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.1.2019 Arif

Smt. Bhagwan Dei v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagwan Dei 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

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

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

Atul Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ajai Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Others

Anek Upadhyaya and Another Vs Chief General Manager State Bank of India and Others