Allowed

Shri Krishna Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022WRIA/11250/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner claimed GPF, salary difference, and revised pension. The Court noted salary arrears for 2011-2014 were already paid. It directed the respondent to pay the balance GPF with interest and to pass a reasoned order on earlier salary dues and revise retirement benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 1,41,933/- GPF with 8% interest; direction to pass reasoned order on salary dues for 2001-2007; revision of pension and retiral dues payable within three months.

Shri Krishna Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11250 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus upon respondent authorities : (i) to pay GPF Rs. 1,41,933/-; (ii) difference of salary for the period 24.12.2001 to 30.06.2007 and; (iii) revised pension and other retiral dues as the petitioner may be entitled to occasioned by revision of emoluments.

¶7

Briefly, the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee at Intermediate College, Tajpur, Mudyari, Ballia. He claims to have been promoted on the post of Assistant Clerk at the above institution on 25.10.2005.

¶8

Occasioned by certain other developments, petitioner's salary payment was withheld in February 2011. The petitioner retired in that status on 31.08.2014.

¶9

In that context, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ - A No. 16937 of 2014. It was disposed of, by order dated 24.03.2014, requiring the DIOS to decide the petitioner's representation made with respect to payment of salary from February 2011 onwards. That order remained to be complied. Accordingly, petitioner filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4571 of 2014.

¶10

At that stage, the DIOS passed an order dated 20.09.2015, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶11

Meanwhile considering the student-teacher ratio, three posts

¶12

of Assistant Clerk including Head Clerk came to be sanctioned at the above named institution. This fact was taken note of in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4571 of 2014, wherein this Court passed the order dated 21.01.2019.

¶13

In any case, in view of the above noted development, the DIOS passed a further order dated 31.01.2019 whereby he has accepted the claim of the petitioner and found him entitled to salary for the period February 2011 to August 2014.

¶14

No challenge was ever raised to the order dated 31.01.2019. Even the counter affidavit filed by the State does not disclose that any decision has been made by the State as may dilute the effect of that order.

¶15

Therefore, it must be held, the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary has been acknowledged and allowed by the respondents for the period February 2011 to August 2014. That salary has already been paid out to the petitioner.

¶16

As to the payment of GPF, it is seen, the petitioner has relied on the computation made by the institution, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition and pleadings in that regard have been made in paragraph nos. 19 and 20 of the writ petition. The counter affidavit does not offer any denial to the said pleading. Therefore, it has to be accepted, the amount of Rs. 1,41,933/- was due and payable to the petitioner towards GPF. Eight years have passed since the petitioner retired from service. No justifiable reason has been shown for non-payment for the balance GPF.

¶17

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following direction :

¶18

(i) Let amount of Rs. 1,41,933/- being balance GPF be paid out to the petitioner forthwith together with interest @ 8% from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment.

¶19

(ii) In view of the discussion made above, a direction is issued to the respondent no.2 to pass a reasoned and speaking order with respect to the claim for payment of salary being made by the petitioner for the period 24.12.2001 to 30.06.2007 considering the then existing "janshakti" .

¶20

If there existed sanctioned post, it is expected, salary dues be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

¶21

Subject to that decision being made in favour of the petitioner, his pensionary and other retiral dues may be revised accordingly and such revised pay may also be paid out to the petitioner within a further period of three months.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 Abhilash

¶23

Digitally signed by ABHILASH SINGH Date: 2022.11.10 17:35:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Krishna Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Krishna Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vidyawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Uma Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another