Disposed

Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023WRIA/1398/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition concerning delayed payment of retirement dues. After the respondents paid the principal amount, the petitioner claimed interest. The court directed respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to pay 6% interest on the unpaid amount.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to pay interest @ 6% on the undisputed amount from the due date to the date of actual payment.

Jay Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1398 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Sanjai Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineet Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 7 & 8 and Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Additional Chief Secretary, Agricultural Marketing and Agricultural Foreign Trade, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow as respondent No. 9 during the course of the day.

¶7

Learned Chief Standing Counsel has filed personal affidavit alongwith exemption application on behalf of respondent No. 1, which is taken on record.

¶8

In the personal affidavit, it is stated that respondent No. 1 has no concern with the dispute in question, whereas, Additional Chief Secretary, Agricultural Marketing and Agricultural Foreign Trade, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow-respondent No. 9 is having the authority over the matter, therefore, personal appearance of respondent No. 1 may be exempted.

¶9

Reasons given in the personal affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 is accepted and exemption application is allowed.

¶10

This case was heard on 20.02.2023 and the Court has passed the following order:

¶11

" Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1, 7 & 8 and Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.

¶12

The case was heard on 06.02.2023 and the court has passed the following order:

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the

¶14

State-respondent Nos. 1, 7 & 8 and Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prays for and is granted one week time to seek instruction as directed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2023.

¶16

Learned standing counsel is also directed to seek specific instruction about the letters dated 16.03.2020 & 30.04.2020 (Annexures 3 & 4 to the writ petition) within the same time.

¶17

Put up on 13.02.2023 as fresh."

¶18

In the last line of order dated 06.02.2023 in place of Annexures 4 and 5, it has been wrongly transcribed as Annexures 3 and 4.

¶19

Despite order of this Court dated 06.02.2023, no instruction has been provided by the respondents, therefore, again on 13.02.2023 the Court had passed the following order:

¶20

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.

¶21

This Court vide orders dated 25.1.2023 & 13.2.2023 granted time to learned counsel for the respondents to seek instruction, but till date no instruction has been provided.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted one week and no more time to seek instruction as directed by this Court vide orders dated 25.1.2023 & 13.2.2023 failing which respondent nos. 1 & 2 shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed.

¶23

Put up this case as fresh on 20.2.2023."

¶24

Pursuant to order dated 13.02.2023, Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 6 has produced the instruction dated 16.02.2023, which is taken on record. From the perusal of instruction, it is apparently clear that though vide letter dated 29.12.2018, it is observed that, if required, liability shall be fixed against the petitioner, but no positive order has been passed for recovery at that point of time. In the letter dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) written to respondent No. 4, it has been clearly mentioned that nothing was found due against the petitioner with reference to Mandi Samiti, Azamgarh. Not only this, for the very same amount, which is in dispute, four letters dated 30.4.2020 (collectively filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition) have been written by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 8, asking for the payment of same, which has been withheld from the retiral dues of the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amount of Rs. 31,85,359/demanded by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from respondent Nos. 7 & 8 including Rs. 22,22,363/- which has been withheld from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Further in light of letter dated 30.04.2022, it is aparant that very same amount is also demanded from the State Government.

¶26

Upon this, the Court vide order dated 06.02.2023 and 13.02.2023 has directed the learned standing counsel to produce the instruction, but no instruction has been provided.

¶27

Learned standing counsel submitted that pursuant to order of this Court dated 06.02.2023 and 13.02.2023, he has written letters dated 06.02.2023 and 14.02.2023 for providing instruction, but he has not received any instruction.

¶28

In such view of the case, respondent No. 1-Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Finance is directed to remain present before the Court on the next date fixed alongwith the affidavit as to why instruction has not been provided in spite of orders of this Court dated 06.02.2023 and 13.02.2023.

¶29

Put up as fresh on 27.02.2023. "

¶30

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.2.2023, Mr. Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 submitted that amount of Rs. 22,22,363/- has now been paid to petitioner, therefore, petition may be dismissed as infructuous. He has produced photo copy of two cheque Nos. 353411 and 060725, dated 24.02.2023, which is taken on record.

¶31

Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid fact about the payment, but submitted that amount so retained by the respondent authorities from the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2018 to till date, therefore, he is also entitled for interest for the said period. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Inder Prakash Ahuja vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & 4 Ors. (Writ-A No. 55049 of 2016), Dauji Ram Vs. State of U.P. And Another ( Writ A No. 56953 of 2013), Smt. Poonam Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. (Writ A No. 63344 of 2013) and Shiv Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others (Special Appeal Defective No. 10 of 2015).

¶32

Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 has submitted that so far as interest of petitioner is concerned, he may be granted time to file counter affidavit.

¶33

I have considered the request of Sri Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. There is no dispute on the point that the amount in question i.e. Rs. 22,22,363/- prayed by the petitioner, has been paid to him unconditionally. Now it is proved that amount was due to petitioner from the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2018 and there is no occasion for this Court to grant time to file counter affidavit on the point of interest, once the amount is undisputed and has been paid to him.

¶34

Thus, under such facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to pay the interest @ 6% upon the aforesaid amount from the due date to the date of actual payment. Respondent No. 9 is directed to ensure the compliance of order passed today.

¶35

However, it is open for the respondents to conduct inquiry for the recovery of interest from the officer/official responsible for the same.

¶36

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 ADY

¶37

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Smt Sudha Tiwari Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naushad Khan Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amit Kumar Garg and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Shimbhu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allauddin Khan Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others