Allowed

Badri Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2020WRIA/238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined service book entries to correct a lower authority's erroneous finding. It held the petitioner was regularised on 31.07.1990 and directed the District Magistrate to decide claims for terminal benefits within four months.

What did the court decide?

The District Magistrate ordered to decide claims for terminal benefits strictly based on the finding that services were regularised on 31.07.1990 and disburse them within four months.

Badri Narain Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 238 of 2019 Petitioner :- Badri Narain Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

I have perused the service book of the petitioner with the assistance of Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.

¶5

The entries in the service book commence from the year 1976. The entries from time to time indicate that the term of the petitioner had expired under the column "Reason for Termination such as (Transfer, Dismissal, etc)". Successive entries are made from 1976 to 1986. The entries in the aforesaid period record the phrase "term expired". An endorsement on the direction of the District Magistrate is made on 28.02.1987 to the effect that the petitioner is appointed on the post of Collection Amin against the vacancy created on the post of a regular Collection Amin on account of superannuation of Shivanand Singh. The next relevant entry dated 31.07.1990 made by the Sub Divisional Magistrte, Ballia records that the petitioner is regularised w.e.f. 31.07.1990. These are the extracts of the service book which have a direct bearing on the controversy.

¶6

The entries were not disputed by Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner upon perusal of the contents of the original service book. The finding in the order dated 02.01.1996 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia that according to the service book entry the petitioner was regularised on 01.12.1981 is perverse and false. It is contrary to the record. This too was not contested by Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

After perusal of the record learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contends that the petitioner does not wish to continue any further litigation and shall base his claim on the above findings rendered in this order.

¶8

In the wake of the preceding discussion, this Court finds that the services of the

¶9

petitioner were regularised on 31.07.1990. The petitioner shall be entitled to all service benefits from the aforesaid date. The petitioner shall make a representation regrading his claim to the competent authority alongwith a copy of this order. Considering the long pendency of the litigation it is expected that the competent authority shall decide the aforesaid claim and disburse the benefits to which the petitioner is lawfully entitled.

¶10

Parties agree that the matter be remitted to the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate/Collector, Ballia.

¶11

With consent of parties and in view of the preceding discussion, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding respondent no. District Magistrate, Ballia to execute the following directions:

¶12

(i) The respondent no. 2, District Magistrate/Collector, Ballia shall decide the claims of the petitioner for various terminal benefits strictly in light of the observations made earlier in this order by a speaking order in accordance with law and ensure that the benefits are disbursed within a period of four months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, along with a copy of representation. The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioners (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the proceedings for processing his claims.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.10.2020 Pravin

Badri Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Virendra Kumar Khare Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sudeep Kumar Srivastav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajeet Kumar Dhar Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Sushant Chandra Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Ram Narayan Pandey Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shailesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 3 Others