Disposed

Shiv Shodhan Dubey v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023WRIA/21108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that standing counsel instructed that pension revision orders were pending State Government approval, but the outcome of a December 2022 meeting was unclear. Deeming indefinite bureaucratic delay unacceptable for a retired employee, the Court directed the respondents to coordinate and take an appropriate decision within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondents 1 to 3 to coordinate and ensure an appropriate decision on pension revision within eight weeks to avoid indefinite delays.

Shiv Shodhan Dubey Vs State of U P and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21108 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiv Shodhan Dubey Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pragyanshu Pandey,Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs, which read as under:-

¶7

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to revise and pay the pension to the petitioner, considering the notional promotion given to the petitioner w.e.f. 03.10.1972 by seeking all necessary documents from the respondent No.5;

¶8

ii. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to forward all necessary documents to respondent No.3 required for the revision of pension of the petitioner."

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though after retirement, the petitioner has moved a representation for revision of his pension and from time to time various orders have been passed by the authorities, yet the same has not been reached at a conclusion and in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had to approach this Court by means of the instant petition.

¶10

This Court by means of the order dated 20.01.2023 had required the learned standing counsel to seek instructions and in furtherance thereof, the written instructions have been provided, under the signatures of Assistant Cane Commissioner, which is taken on record.

¶11

From a perusal of the aforesaid written instructions, it only indicates that various orders regarding revision of pension have been passed and the same has been referred to the State Government for approval. It also indicates that the matter is fixed for the aforesaid purpose and lastly on 16.12.2022, a meeting was held, however, there is nothing on record what was the outcome of the said meeting.

¶12

In the aforesaid circumstances where the instructions are not very clear, this Court does not deem it appropriate to keep the matter pending rather is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served by directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to coordinate and ensure an appropriate decision is taken, in light of the orders which have been passed by the authorities and referred to the State Government, after obtaining the necessary approval, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. The respondents No.1 to 3 shall ensure the compliance is made as a retired employee cannot be made to suffer indefinitely on account of bureaucratic delays.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Rakesh/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Shodhan Dubey v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shodhan Dubey v. State of U P and 4 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

Dr Jay Prakash Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajeet Kumar Srivastava and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Paras Nath Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pramila Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Narayan Agrahari Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another