Allowed

Ram Chandra Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2019WRIA/61084/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking payment of retirement dues. The court directed the respondent officer to process the petitioner's claim for gratuity and pension, rejecting the defense that the missing appointment letter justified the delay given the lack of prior inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to issue a framed representation and pass an order on retirement dues within two months, and pay benefits within one month if found entitled.

Ram Chandra Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61084 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Pandey learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kailash Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdish Singh Bundela, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶8

"A. Issue in the nature of Mandamus Commanding/Directing the Respondent No.3 to release the petitioner's retiral dues Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave encashment, Group Insurance, Medical allowances arrears of Pension, and other dues with interest admissible under the Law rom the date of retirement of retirement till the date of actual payment made and also paid monthly pension regularly to the petitioner within specific period fix by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

The facts in brief as contained in the writ petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the office of Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari Pilibhit on 27.7.1982 on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.05.1991, the petitioner was declared as permanent on the aforesaid post with effect from 15.12.1990. After appointment on the aforesaid post, the petitioner worked at various places from time to time. No disciplinary action whatsoever has been taken against him at any point of time. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) vide order dated 7.7.2015.

¶10

Before his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 4.5.2016

¶11

¶12

issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer Pilibhit-respondent No.3 for submission of his initial appointment letter for disbursement of his retiral dues and other benefits. Ultimately the petitioner retired from services after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2016. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) Vikas Khand Barkhedaha District Pilibhit.

¶13

After the retirement of the petitioner, he submitted a representation on 1.8.2016 for payment of his post retiral dues like gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, insurance etc. The petitioner also made a representation dated 23.11.2016 addressed to the respondent No.3 stating therein that he had lost his original appointment letter but since he is working regularly in the department since 1982 and was paid his salary without any break whatsoever, he is entitled for his post retiral benefits. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had worked about 34 years and 5 months continuously but wholly illegally retiremental dues are not paid to the petitioner only on the reason that original appointment letter was not provided by him to the respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that nonpayment of retiral dues to the petitioner is in complete violation of Civil Service Regulation framed by the State Government. In spite of the fact that the petitioner had already been superannuated on 31.7.2016, no post retiral benefits were provided to him, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶14

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is stated that according to the records available in the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982. The petitioner was selected and his name was contained in the waiting list for the post of Sewak. The petitioner was directed to submit his joining up to 10.05.1982, thereafter the aforesaid waiting list was cancelled. It is further contended that in the office note-sheet dated

¶15

¶16

5.5.1982 two persons submitted their joining but the petitioner did not join till 10.5.1982 as directed vide letter dated 5.5.1982.

¶17

It is further contended in the counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner was neither found in any select list nor he was submitted any information in the office of respondent No.2 stating that he was selected/appointed in which year and month and on which date the letter of appointment was issued to him. It is further contended that since the petitioner was not able to supply a copy of his appointment letter in spite of several demands made by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, his retiral dues were not paid to him. It is further contended that the petitioner has fraudulently managed to continue in service under the respondent No.3 at different places and thereafter attained the age of superannuation. It is further contended that the Chairman of U.P. News Paper Association made a complaint before Additional Director, Treasury and Pension Bareilly Mandal Bareilly with regard to the illegal continuation of service of petitioner and on inquiry, the same was found correct.

¶18

In the rejoinder affidavit, facts as narrated in the counter affidavit are denied. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that it is wrong to say that the name of the petitioner was contained in the waiting list. It is further contended that at no point of time, any paper or document was placed before this Court by which the selection of the petitioner was cancelled. It is further contended in the rejoinder affidavit that from perusal of the order dated 29.09.1991 it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on 27.7.1982 and with effect from 15.12.1990 he was declared as permanent.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

It is clear from the record of the case that the petitioner joined his services in the year 1982 and since then he worked regularly without any break till the time of his superannuation, i.e., 31^st July, 2016. At no point of time, any inquiry whatsoever has been conducted regarding illegal or irregular of appointment the petitioner in the department. Even after retirement of the petitioner in the year 2016 no proceedings were initiated

¶21

¶22

against him. It is only after the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court, a lame excuse has been taken by the respondents regarding mentioning the name of the petitioner in the waiting list. No paper and documents whatsoever has been brought on record even in the counter affidavit regarding cancellation of the select list in the year 1982. In the above circumstance of the case, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted.

¶23

In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that wholly illegally and without any cogent reasons, the post retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner and it is a fit case for issuance of Mandamus in favour of the petitioner. The present writ petition is finally disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent No.3//District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit along with a certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is filed, respondent No.3//District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit is directed to pass appropriate order on the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid representation.

¶24

Needless to say that if it is found by respondent No.3 that the petitioner is entitled for his retiral benefits, the same should be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of order passed by him in this regard.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.8.2019 saqlain

Ram Chandra Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Raj Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Raj Kishore Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dr. Rakesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Shree Devi Yadava Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ram Bhagat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shesh Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.