Disposed

Rama Kant Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021WRIA/1343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the respondent to consider a fresh representation from the petitioner for the release of full pension arrears from his retirement date. The petitioner had been acquitted of criminal charges and the related disciplinary inquiry was dropped. The Court held it would not be appropriate to directly order full pension but directed the authority to reconsider t

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation for full pension arrears from the date of retirement for the respondent to consider.

Rama Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1343 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rama Kant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Sumitra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶5

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to decide the representation dated 21.09.2020/01.12.2020 considering the judgement and order dated 30.10.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.177 of 2005 by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case. Further prayer is to pay all arrears and full pension to the petitioner for the post of Junior Clerk since the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2016 from the office of respondent No.4. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the order dated 26.06.2018 whereby the respondent No.2 has ordered that the period of incarceration i.e. 25.06.2004 till 04.08.2004 would be treated as suspension of the petitioner and he would not be entitled to the salary and other allowances for the said period except the suspension allowance.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner on account of lodging of the first information report which had led to registration of the Sessions Trial No.177 of 2005. The disciplinary enquiry had later been dropped vide office order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 noticing therein that delay was causing in decision of the Sessions Court. However, it was opined that the period of incarceration from 25.06.2004 till 04.08.2004 shall be treated as suspension and the payment of other benefits would be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Sessions Court. The direction was issued to pay all other benefits and allowances other than the subsistence allowance.

¶7

However, for the period of suspension from 05.08.2004 till 30.07.2004 i.e. for which the petitioner remained under suspension on account of initiation of the departmental enquiry, all benefits/pay and allowances after adjusting the payment made towards the subsistence allowances were approved to be paid. After submission of the order of acquittal dated

¶8

30.10.2017 in the Sessions Trial No.177 of 2005 by the petitioner, a decision was taken on 26.06.2018 by the respondent to treat the period of incarceration from 25.06.2004 till 04.08.2004 as suspension and benefits other than the subsistence allowance namely salary and allowances were held not payable for that period.

¶9

Admittedly, from 25.06.2004 till 04.08.2004, the petitioner was lodged in jail on account of the criminal case lodged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC at the Police Station, Chaubepur, Varanasi.

¶10

The petitioner was, thus, not available for rendering his services in the department during the said period. It is not the case of the petitioner nor it could be that the petitioner had not been permitted to work by the concerned authority of the department or respondent No.2 made any mistake or any illegal order had been passed on their part. The petitioner had been lodged in jail on account of the criminal case lodged where allegations were of committing murder. The decision of the respondent No.2 in not granting full salary for the period of incarceration of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. Rather the Court finds that the disciplinary authority had taken a liberal view for granting suspension allowances for the period when the petitioner was not available to render his service in the department. Applying principles of 'No Work No Pay', the decision of the competent authority in denying full salary to the petitioner for the period of incarceration cannot be said to suffer from any error of law.

¶11

As far as the claim of the petitioner that full pension is not being paid to him since the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2016 on account of the said disciplinary enquiry which had been dropped and the judicial proceeding wherein he has been acquitted, direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner if the said fact is correct.

¶12

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction as follows:-

¶13

The petitioner shall make a fresh representation alongwith the copy of this order before respondent No.2 raising his grievances for payment of full pension w.e.f. 31.07.2016, i.e. the date of superannuation.

¶14

The respondent No.2 shall consider the said representation and pass an appropriate order for release of pension taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case on 31.10.2017 and the disciplinary enquiry

¶15

initiated against him had been dropped by an order dated 21.04.2017. As on date, as per submission of the petitioner, neither the disciplinary enquiry nor the judicial proceedings are pending against him.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Himanshu

Rama Kant Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Kant Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Mukesh Chandra Sharma Vs U.P. Jal Nigam and 5 Others

Jaydrath Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Raj and Another Vs Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences and 4 Others

Kusum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others