Dismissed

Sanaullah Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023WRIA/15414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of service and payment of General Provident Fund. The court directed the authority to consider regularization from 01.04.2003 based on existing recommendations and pay the admitted GPF amount within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to regularize petitioner with effect from 01.04.2003 and pay admitted GPF of Rs. 17.61 lakhs within two months.

Sanaullah Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178354

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15414 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sanaullah Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being disposed of.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to pay the total amount of General Provident Fund (GPF) of approximately Rs 17.61 lakhs alongwith interest and to consider the regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2003 as well as to issue pension payment order with respect to the petitioner.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wager Mate in the year 1983. His service has been regularized vide the order dated 23.06.2005. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2022.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner he has come across an order dated 21.04.2017, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, whereby the office of Executive Engineer, Kanpur Dehat has indicated that on account of relevant documents not being available various employees including the petitioner, who were eligible for being regularized with effect from 01.04.2003 itself, could not be regularized. The said letter has been sent to the Chief

¶10

Engineer, Lucknow for appropriate orders. The contention is that when the respondents themselves have found that the petitioner was entitled for being regularized on 01.04.2003 as emerges from a copy of the letter dated 21.04.2017 and the letter has also been sent to the office of the Chief Engineer, Lucknow for appropriate orders, as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to sit over the same and they are bound to pass an order either way.

¶11

The further contention is that as the petitioner has been regularized only on 23.06.2005 consequently he has not been given benefit of the old pension scheme yet in case the letter dated 21.04.2017 is taken to its logical end and approval is granted by the Chief Engineer then the same would entail regularization for the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2003 which in turn would entitle the petitioner for benefit of the old pension scheme, payment of gratuity and other retiral dues.

¶12

The other argument is that the respondents have also not paid the entire GPF amount to the petitioner as emerges from a perusal of the letter dated 24.06.2023, a copy of which is annexure 12 to the petition, whereby the competent authority has indicated that the petitioner is entitled for GPF of Rs 17.61 lakhs approximately and thus it is urged that there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to sit over the matter pertaining to non-payment of entire amount of GPF of which the petitioner is entitled.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is unable to controvert the factual matrix as have emerged from a perusal of the aforesaid documents.

¶14

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid and the fact that the competent authority has itself recommended the regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2003 which recommendation

¶15

has been sent to the Chief Engineer vide the letter dated 21.04.2017 as well as the fact that the competent authority vide the letter dated 24.06.2023 has indicated that the amount of GPF to be paid to the petitioner is approximately 17.61 lakhs, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to (a) consider the case of the regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2003 in terms of recommendations made by the Executive Engineer in his letter dated 21.04.2017 and (b) to pay the admitted amount of GPF as emerges from a perusal of the letter dated 24.06.2023.

¶16

Let the aforesaid compliance be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law and relevant rules provided there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 J. K. Dinkar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanaullah Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanaullah Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Pankaj Kumar and 81 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mr. Beeram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sri Krishna Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Shiv Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others