Partly allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022/275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condensed the delay in filing a special appeal. It partially allowed the appeal by modifying a prior order to limit government doctors' entitlement to non-practice allowance only from 21.06.2005 onwards.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal partly allowed; 27.04.2022 order modified to entitle government doctors to N.P.A. only w.e.f. 21.06.2005.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 275 of 2022 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Respondent :- Dr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Prasad Gupta

¶2

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶3

(C.M.Application No.1 of 2022)

¶4

Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the special appeal and having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.

¶5

Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in preferring the special appeal is hereby condoned.

¶6

(Order on memo of Appeal)

¶7

Parties are in agreement that issue engaging attention of this special appeal is no more res integra and the same has been settled by means of the judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed by this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No.73 of 2022.

¶8

Accordingly, having regard to the said judgment dated 16.08.2022 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.73 of 2022, this special appeal is also partly allowed and the judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 passed in Writ-A No.2390 of 2022 is modified to the extent that government doctors holding the post of Director/Additional Director/Director General became entitled to be paid non-practice allowance only w.e.f. 21.06.2005 and not before that. It is, thus, ordered that the petitioner who retired prior to 21.06.2005 will not be entitled to be paid N.P.A.

¶9

At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent prays that the respondent may be given to challenge validity of Rules 1983.

¶10

In respect of the said prayer, we may observe that it is needless to say that for challenging the validity of the said Rules respondent does not require any leave of the Court.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 akhilesh/

¶12

Digitally signed by AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Date: 2022.12.08 10:46:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari

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

Daya Shanker Singh S/S 159/2006 Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha and 4 Ors.

Paras Nath Tiwari Vs Director of Education Madhyamik and 6 Ors.

Shashi Prabha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of P.W.D. Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another Vs Rajendra Kumar Sonwani and Another

Dipti Goel (Agarwal) Vs Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal

Suresh Chandra Tiwari Vs Smt. Preeti Pandey