Disposed

Gopal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023WRIA/1552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to prevent deduction of Rs. 600,000 from retirement dues and to sanction recovery. Court directed petitioner to file fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 within fifteen days for time-bound decision, disposing of written petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 within fifteen days; pending consideration under law.

Gopal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1552 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Gopal Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Mishra,Sarveshwari Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶6

" a) a, writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent directing the respondent no. 2 not to deduct, sum of the deduction amount to the extent of Rs. 600000/- (Six Lacs) from the retirement dues of the petitioner.

¶7

b) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to Sanction the recovery/deduction amount Rs. 600000/- (Six Lacs) to the petitioner within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court and along with penal interest thereon within such further period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. "

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from the post of Head Constable from the Provincial Armed Constabulary (Civil) on 31.10.2021, however, a sum of Rs. 600000/- being the retiral dues have not been released. In this respect, petitioner has filed a representation dated 20.6.2022, however, till date no order has been passed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010 (Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others) even if any excess amount is paid to the petitioner, the same cannot be recovered after the retirement of the petitioner.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before respondent no. 3 which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law in a time bound manner.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is hereby directed

¶12

that the petitioner may file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 3 within a period of fifteen days from today. In case such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a further period of one month.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation/direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 VMA

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Shyampyare Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shekh Abdul Mannan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr.Prem Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Apreksha Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others