Dismissed

Abdullah Khan v. Union of India Thru Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Ors.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019WRIA/5614/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed applications to condone delay in substituting parties and recalled a prior order before hearing a writ petition challenging the rejections of pension claims. The court dismissed the petition on merits, noting the petitioner failed to meet the minimum qualifying service of ten years.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Article 226 dismissed due to failure to complete minimum qualifying service of 10 years.

Abdullah Khan Vs Union of India Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5614 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Abdullah Khan Respondent :- Union Of India and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S.Rathor, A.P.S.Rathor, Dinesh Pathak

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Arvind Srivastava, Saurabh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶6

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing this substitution application.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Delay in filing this appeal is explained satisfactorily. It is

¶9

hereby condoned. The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶10

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Siddhant Sahu

¶11

(D.Con. Appl. 265742 of 2017)

¶12

Court No. - 34

¶13

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5614 of 2013 Petitioner :- Abdullah Khan Respondent :- Union Of India and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S.Rathor, A.P.S.Rathor, Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Arvind Srivastava, Saurabh Srivastava

¶14

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶15

Heard. 2. Allowed. 3. Let substitution be carried out within three days. Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Siddhant Sahu

¶16

(Subs.Appl.265743 of 2017)

¶17

Court No. - 34

¶18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5614 of 2013

¶19

Petitioner :- Abdullah Khan Respondent :- Union Of India and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S.Rathor, A.P.S.Rathor, Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Arvind Srivastava, Saurabh Srivastava

¶20

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶21

This is an application seeking recall of our order dated

¶22

12.04.2018.

¶23

Cause shown for non-appearance is sufficient.

¶24

Order dated 12.04.2018 is hereby recalled.

¶25

This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.1.2019

¶27

Siddhant Sahu

¶28

(Recall/Rest.Appl.5 of 2018)

¶29

Court No. - 34

¶30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5614 of 2013

¶31

¶32

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶33

Order dated 12.04.2018 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶34

As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, we proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.

¶35

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has arisen from judgment and order dated 01.06.2017 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as “OA”) No. 1297 of 2006 whereby Tribunal has dismissed aforesaid OA.

¶36

Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on 19.09.1997 on regular basis and was compulsorily retired on 09.09.2007. His claim for pension has been rejected on the ground that petitioner did not fulfil requisite minimum qualifying service of 10 years since he has worked only 9 years 10 months and 10 days.

¶37

Counsel for petitioner contended that since there was a gap of only 1 month 20 days, the same should have been condoned but he could not show any provision under which such deficiency could have been condoned. A person who has not rendered minimum qualifying service, cannot be directed to

¶38

be paid pension. It is also not in dispute that minimum qualifying service under CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1972”) is 10 years.

¶39

In these admitted facts and circumstances, we find no manifest error in the judgment of Tribunal warranting interference.

¶40

Dismissed.

¶41

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Abdullah Khan v. Union of India Thru Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdullah Khan v. Union of India Thru Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Ors.

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

Subhash Verma Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Garima Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors. Vs Ram Sajeevan and Anr.

Aqil Rasheed Vs State of U.P.Thru Principal Secretary and Ors.