Dismissed

Saran Kali Thapa v. Dr. Jai Prakash, the Registrar and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023CAPL/4674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application filed against non-implementation of a writ order mandating examination of a dual pension claim, the applicant filed an affidavit confirming the university sanctioned the family pension via the Directorate of Pension, U.P. The court found the writ order complied with.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed; contempt notice discharged.

Saran Kali Thapa Vs Dr. Jai Prakash, the Registrar and 2… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177500

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4674 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saran Kali Thapa Opposite Party :- Dr. Jai Prakash, The Registrar And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

An affidavit of compliance has been filed today which is taken on record.

¶7

The writ Court on 12.07.2019 while disposing of Writ-A No. 10321 of 2019 passed the following order:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Munna Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5.

¶9

Petitioner's husband retired from Indian Army 18.10.1960. It is thereafter that he was appointed in respondent no.3 University and has been superannuated in 1987.

¶10

This petition has been filed seeking benefit of circular issued by the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) dated 17.1.2013 implementing dual pension policy. It is stated that as per the said circular petitioner is entitled to get pension from both the employers.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the circular dated 17.1.2013 clearly provided that the same shall be effective from 24.9.2012. It is also stated that petitioner had relinquished her right to receive pension from University and a letter in that regard of the year 2000 has been placed before the Court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, places reliance upon the circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence dated 17.1.2013 as per which the benefit of circular has been allowed in past cases also, but the financial benefit has been granted only from 24.9.2012. Learned counsel also submits that prior to introduction of dual pension policy the petitioner had exercised her option to receive pension from Indian Army only but now under the revised policy, she is entitled to receive pension from both the employers and as such her claim is liable to be examined.

¶13

Having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the respondent no.3 University is required to take a specific decision with regard to petitioner's claim for payment of pension keeping in view the circular dated 17.1.2013 issued by the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and the circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The mere fact

¶14

that she had relinquished her right earlier would not be relevant inasmuch as prior to the year 2012 the dependant of employee could opt between either of the two pensions and the petitioner in such circumstances opted for pension from the Indian Army. However, when the dual pension policy has been introduced her initial act of surrendering benefit of pension from University would not come in the way for consideration of dual pension.

¶15

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.3 University to examine petitioner's claim, as noticed above, in light of the circular dated 17.1.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. In case petitioner's claim is accepted, all consequential action would be taken accordingly."

¶16

From perusal of the order passed by writ Court, it transpires that a direction was issued upon University to examine applicant's claim in the light of the circular dated 17.01.2023 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence. In case the claim was accepted, all consequential action was to be taken accordingly.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel apprises the Court that pursuant to direction of writ Court, final decision has been taken by the authorities on 21.12.2022 and the said fact has been stated in para no. 7 of compliance affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that Directorate of Pension, U.P. has sanctioned the family pension to the applicant and necessary orders have been issued, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure1 to compliance affidavit.

¶18

In view of said fact, as the order of writ Court has been complied with, the contempt application is rendered infructuous and the same stands dismissed.

¶19

Contempt notice stands discharged.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 V.S.Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saran Kali Thapa v. Dr. Jai Prakash, the Registrar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saran Kali Thapa v. Dr. Jai Prakash, the Registrar and 2 Others

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

Kamala Devi Vs Saurabh Bhatt, Sdm, Tehsil - Phoolpur

Ram Akshaibar Mishra Vs Ashok Kumar, Secretary Uppsc and Another

Anuj Yadav Vs Omveer Singh, S.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Sudhir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer

M/S Rukmani and Company Vs Sri Amit Aaseri, Municipal Commissioner

Swati Singhal Vs Shri Pratap Singh Baghel, Secretry Basic Education Board