Disposed

Dr. Vijendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2019WRIA/8204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding incorrect pension computation treating petitioner as retired from Associate Professor post instead of Principal. Court directed third respondent to decide pending representation on merits within six weeks without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to decide pending representation dated 02.01.2019 within six weeks.

Dr. Vijendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8204 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Vijendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Dwivedi,Satyendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as Principal of Nehru Memorial Shiv Narain Das (PG) College, Budaun, on basis a recommendation made by the Higher Education Commission. Subsequently, the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioner was appointed as well as the entire selection was struck down by this Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The pension of the petitioner was fixed treating the petitioner to have retired as Associate Professor with grade pay of Rs. 9,000/-. The petitioner contends that since he retired from the post of Principal, therefore, the computation is incorrect, as at the relevant time, he was in grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-. He has placed reliance on order of the Supreme Court dated 1st March 2017 passed on a modification application in support of his contention that he would be entitled to computation of pensionary benefits by treating him to have retired from the post of Principal.

¶6

On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the Supreme Court dated 1st March 2017 only provides for continuity of service during the period, person has worked as Principal but it does not provide that the pensionary benefits would be computed by treating the person to have retired from the post of Principal.

¶7

The petitioner has already made representation for making modification in the pension payment order. The representation is dated 2nd January 2019 and is still pending consideration before the third respondent.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel states that the third respondent would decide the representation of the petitioner within such time as may be directed by this Court.

¶9

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to decide representation dated 2.01.2019 (Annexure-8) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy along with photocopy of the representation.

¶10

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 M. ARIF

Dr. Vijendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vijendra Kumar Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sharvan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parikshit Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M, D.N.P.G.College, Bulandshahr, and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Poojan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others