Disposed

Buddhiram Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019WRIA/437/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a superannuated clerk, sought pension after non-payment by the management. Court directed him to submit a fresh representation regarding all grievances to the District Basic Education Officer, who must pass a speaking order after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move fresh representation regarding grievances; Respondent no.3 to pass appropriate speaking order after hearing within specified timeframe.

Buddhiram Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 437 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Buddhiram Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Debee Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Mohd. Shere Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶6

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed today, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no.4.

¶7

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer inter-alia to permit the petitioner to deposit the Management's contribution along-with interest within stipulated period with further prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 2.8.2018.

¶8

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk on 1.7.1976 in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya, Laghu Madhyamik Viddyalay, Awadh Nagar, Gajrahi, Nai Kot, District Maharajganj. Vide order dated 25.4.1991 services of the petitioner was regularised. At the time when petitioner was appointed the institution in question was not in grant-in-aid list.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the institution came in grant-in-aid list the management stopped the payment of salary to the petitioner. In this background the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.52415 of 2003. An interim order was granted in favour of petitioner on 13.5.2004. Ultimately the aforesaid writ petition was finally allowed by this Court vide its order dated 23.12.2005. It is further contended that after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, an order dated 28.8.2006 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer by which the petitioner was paid his entire salary. Now the petitioner has already been superannuated after attaining the age of retirement in April 2004 but no pension whatsoever has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner also relied upon a judgement of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.23731 of 2012 Jokhan Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on

¶10

15.5.2012, copy of which is appended as annexure 5 to the writ petition. When the pension was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner make a representation addressed to the respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, dated 2.8.2018. Since no action has been taken on the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to move a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, within a period of two weeks from today. In case such representation is made, the respondent no.3 shall pass appropriate speaking order within a further period of three weeks after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi

Buddhiram Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddhiram Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Vandana and 48 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaibeer and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mustey Haseen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Minakshi Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushama Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinita Vs State of U.P. and Another