Disposed

Santu Ram and Another v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Allahabad HC13 May 2022WRIA/7259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners, who have superannuated as Collection Peons, sought directions for the sanction of their pension and other post-retiral benefits. The Court directed the District Magistrate to consider their claim within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Magistrate, Chandauli to consider the petitioners' claim for pension and post-retiral dues within six weeks.

Santu Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7259 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Santu Ram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

By means of present writ petition, petitioners have approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to sanction pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioners after taking into consideration the entire services rendered by them as Seasonal Collection Peon w.e.f. 15.11.1995 upto 30.09.2006.

¶8

Record shows that petitioner 1 Sant Ram was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon on 15.11.1995, at Tehsil Chakiya, District Chandauli. His services were regularized on 31.01.2008 on the post of Collection Peon. Thereafter, the services of petitioner were confirmed on the said post on 17.7.2010. Ultimately, petitioner 1 superannuated from his service on 30.8.2020.

¶9

Petitioner 2 was appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon on 15.11.1995 at Tehsil Chakia, District Chandauli. His services were regularized on the post of Collection Peon on 17.2.2007. Thereafter, his services were confirmed on the said post, vide order dated 25.6.2019. Ultimately, the petitioner 2 superannuated from his services on 31.12.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioners contends that inspite of aforesaid facts, the answering respondents have not taken any decision with regard to the payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the petitioner. He has further invited the attention of Court to the judgement and order dated 08.10.2021 passed in Writ-A No.5817 of 2020 (Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) . According to learned counsel for petitioners, case of present petitioners is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgement.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel representing

¶12

respondents 1 and 2 has opposed this writ petition. He submits that against the judgement and order rendered in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and 4 Others (supra), a special appeal has been preferred before Division Bench, which is still pending. However, learned Standing Counsel could not specifically states that in the special appeal, the order impugned has been stayed. He further submits that claim of petitioner regarding pension and other benefits is required to be considered by the authority concerned at the first instance.

¶13

In view of above, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent 2 District Magistrate/Collector, Chandauli to consider the grievance of petitioner in accordance with law.

¶14

Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Chandauli, District Chandauli to consider the claim of petitioner regarding payment of pension and other post-retiral dues in view of the judgement and order dated 08.10.2021 referred to above within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶15

It goes without saying that claim of petitioner shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and as per law laid down by this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 HSM

¶17

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.05.17 17:07:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santu Ram and Another v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santu Ram and Another v. State of U.P. and Anothers

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

Ram Charan Ram and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Nath Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Pal Yadav Vs Union of India and Another

Anand Soni Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saurabh Singh Vs Union of India through Its Sec. Ministry of Home Affairs and 6 Others