Allowed

Om Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2020WRIA/78520/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed a writ petition seeking full salary during suspension and promotion benefits. The court held that denying salary and promotion benefits when no punishment or enquiry was conducted was arbitrary and illegal, directing the respondent to pay dues and pass a requisite order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay full salary for suspension period, consider petitioner for promotion from the date juniors were promoted, and pay all consequential benefits.

Om Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 400497 of 2016 IN

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 78520 of 2005

¶5

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Tripathi, D.S. Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., R.K. Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶7

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing restoration application.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶10

Delay in filing restoration application is hereby condoned.

¶11

The application is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.1.2020 Siddhant Sahu

¶13

Court No. - 34 Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No. 400501 of 2016

¶14

IN Case :- WRIT - A No. - 78520 of 2005

¶15

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Tripathi, D.S. Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., R.K. Srivastava

¶16

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. This is an application seeking recall of order dated 29.07.2013.

¶17

Cause shown for non-appearance is sufficient.

¶18

Order dated 29.07.2013 is hereby recalled.

¶19

The application is accordingly allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.1.2020 Siddhant Sahu

¶21

¶22

Court No. - 34

¶23

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 78520 of 2005

¶24

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Tripathi,D.S. Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K. Srivastava

¶25

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶26

Order dated 29.07.2013 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall/Restoration Application, writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶27

Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.S. Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. None has appeared though the case having been called in revise. Since it is an old matter of 2005, hence, I proceed to decide this matter after hearing aforesaid counsels.

¶28

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to pay full salary to petitioner during period of suspension along with consequential benefits. Petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to promote him on the post of Headmaster in Junior High School.

¶29

In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Junior Primary School on temporary basis and sent him for training on 24.07.1973. After completion of training, he was given permanent appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. He was placed under suspension on 01.07.1976 but the same was revoked vide order dated 08.04.1991 and he was reinstated on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Primary School.

¶30

It is not the case of respondents in the entire counter affidavit that any punishment imposed upon petitioner for the period of suspension or any enquiry was conducted and nothing has stated that

¶31

¶32

as to why petitioner is not entitled for full salary during period of suspension and also consequential benefits of promotion etc., when when his juniors were promoted.

¶33

In view thereof, denial of full salary to petitioner during period of suspension and also consequential benefits of promotion on higher post from the date, his juniors were promoted, is clearly arbitrary and illegal.

¶34

Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to give full salary to petitioner for the period of suspension and also consider him for promotion on higher post from the date, his juniors were promoted and to give all consequential benefits. Requisite order, as directed above, shall be passed by Respondent-Competent Authority within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and all consequential benefits payable to petitioner shall be paid within further two months.

¶35

Order Date :- 28.1.2020 Siddhant Sahu

Om Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Ashim Jafar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Balkhandi and Others Vs U.P. Jal Nigam Thru Managing Director and Others

Harsh Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy Dept of Forest and Others

Omkar Singh Vs Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Sudama Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy Electricity and Others