Dismissed

Triyambak Nath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020WRIA/957/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the correction of the petitioner's last pay from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 1900 and the consequential recalculation of pension. The court held the correction was not illegal and the claim was barred by delay of over 25 years. It also ordered the refund of costs deposited by the Principal Secretary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The refund of Rs. 5000/- deposited by the respondent is directed to be made forthwith.

Triyambak Nath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 957 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Triyambak Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girja Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The last salary drawn by the petitioner at the time of his superannuation on 30.11.1993 was incorrectly fixed at Rs. 2000/-. The pension of the petitioner was fixed on the footing of the aforesaid salary of Rs. 2000/-. The error committed in the fixation of salary and the excess amount paid soon came to the knowledge of the authorities. The authorities made necessary corrections and by order dated 18.02.1995 and the correct last pay drawn by the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1900/-. Necessary corrections in the documentation relating to last pay drawn for the purposes of fixation of pension were also carried out by the respondents. The pension of the petitioner was accordingly recalculated.

¶6

The proceedings were taken out against the petitioner for recovery of the excess amount paid on account of incorrect fixation of salary and pension, by order dated 29.05.1995. The petitioner expressed his inability to pay excess amount because of his financial constraints by letter dated 02.12.1995.

¶7

The petitioner has instituted the writ petition solely on the foot that his pension is liable to be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn which was Rs. 2000/-.

¶8

No illegality could be shown in the orders correcting the last pay drawn by the petitioner and fixing the same at Rs. 1900/-.

¶9

In light of the facts narrated above, the contention is misconceived.

¶10

Consequently, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the fixation of the last pay drawn by the petitioner at Rs. 1900/-, at the time of his superannuation from service. The petitioner is entitled to all pensionary and other benefits on the basis of the aforesaid salary amount.

¶11

Moreover the challenge to the fixation of salary has been made after more than 25 years. The claim is barred by delay and laches.

¶12

I have perused the affidavit submitted by the respondent no. 1- Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of U.P. The reason for failure to file the affidavit in time are worthy of credit and are accepted.

¶13

In such view of the matter, the respondent no. 1-Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of U.P. could not be faulted for some delay in filing the affidavit. This order does not absolve the officials who are being proceeded against departmentally.

¶14

The respondent no. 1-Shri K. Ravindra Naik, Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of U.P., has deposited Rs. 5000/- as costs with the High Court Legal Services Authority.

¶15

I am of the opinion that the respondent no. 1-Shri K. Ravindra Naik, Principal Secretary, Department of Rural

¶16

Development, Government of U.P, is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 5000/- which was deposited by him in compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶17

The High Court Legal Services Authority shall refund the amount forthwith and create bank draft in favour of "K. Ravindra Naik", Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of U.P. and forward the same Shri K. Ravindra Naik, Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of U.P., Lucknow.

¶18

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Dhananjai

Triyambak Nath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triyambak Nath 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Vibha Vajpayee and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Harvindar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Bachan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subhash Chandra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others