Quashed

Iftekhar Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022WRIA/17988/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired public servant claiming leave encashment, approached the court after an impugned order wrongly rejected his claim. This court considered a precedent requiring payment, quashed the lower order, and remitted the matter to the authorities for decision within a month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.4.2021 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the claim within one month.

Iftekhar Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17988 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Iftekhar Ahmad Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

The petitioner who was initially appointed as a Class-IV employee in the office of the District Basis Education Officer, District Budaun was promoted as Second Grade Clerk on 2.7.1975. Thereafter he was promoted as First Grade Clerk on 2.1.1999. On 14.9.2011, he was promoted as Head Clerk. The petitioner retired on 31.7.2015. When the petitioner was not given the encashment of his leave, he filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.8179 of 2020 in which the following order was passed :-

¶6

"The petitioner is superannuated from service on 31.07.2015. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to leave encashment taken during the period of his service. He has made representation in this regard. Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the representation may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Per contra, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents No.1 to 3 submits that it is the duty of the respondentsauthorities to decide the claim for entitlement to service benefits including leave encashment within a reasonable period of time. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has made a claim after much delay. He should not be entitled for interest for the period of delay.

¶8

In response, Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioner waives his claim for interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment.

¶9

No useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court.

¶10

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent No.5-Basic Education Officer, District-Budaun.

¶11

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.5-Basic Education Officer, District-Budaun to execute the following directions :

¶12

I. The respondent No.5-Basic Education Officer, District-Budaun shall decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned and the Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

II. In case the representation of the petitioner is not decided within the aforesaid period, he shall be entitled to claim of interest thereafter. In that case the concerned officials may be liable for payment of interest to the petitioner.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶15

In pursuance of the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 13.4.2021 was passed wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was not able to show any law on the basis of which he was claiming encashment of his leave. The petitioner has produced before the Court a judgment of this Court dated 25.8.2014 by which leave encashment had been extended to one Dharni Dhar Dubey after he had retired from the office of Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that in view of the law as had been laid down in the order dated 25.8.2014 passed in Writ-A No.16921 of 2008, encashment of leave should have been done and accordingly payment should have been made to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Board have contested the writ petition and stated that since the petitioner had not shown any Government Order in his favour, there was no other option with the District Basic Education Officer but to reject the claim of the petitioner.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Raghav Arora holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-Board, the Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner ought to have been decided in view of the judgment and order dated 25.8.2014 passed in Writ-A No.16921 of 2008. Since the law has been clarified in the above judgment, the same ought to have been applied and the petitioner should have been paid his leave encashment amount.

¶18

Under such circumstances, the order dated 13.4.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Disrict Budaun is quashed and is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer who shall in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 25.8.2014 passed in Writ-A No.16921 of 2008 shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.3.2022 GS

¶21

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by GAUTAM SONI Date: 2022.03.05 15:40:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Iftekhar Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iftekhar Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Ji Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gulab Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit Srivas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others