Disposed

Hridayanand Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023WRIA/21314/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an alleged exorbitant recovery of penal rent from the petitioner's salary. The Court declined to examine the merits, directing the Authority to decide the petitioner's pending representation with a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without examining merits; the Authority was directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 13.09.2022 in accordance with law within eig

Hridayanand Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21314 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Hridayanand Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Jay Vishwanath Pandey,Madhaw Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the action of recovery made to the tune of Rs. 7,45,860/- from the salary of the petitioner as penal rent.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has already vacated the quarter in question and has also not received any house rent allowance. The petitioner also does not dispute that the lawful charges may be recovered from him in terms of notification issued by the respondent-authorities, however, that has not been taken note of and an exorbitant recovery is being made.

¶8

It is also urged that the petitioner has already raised this issue by moving a detailed representation dated 13.09.2022 which is engaging the attention of the respondent no. 4 and the same has yet not been decided.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the issue raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid matter pending rather the issue involved is to be decided by the Authority concerned, accordingly without entering into the merits, the petition is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 13.09.2022 in accordance with law, the applicable rules as well as the relevant

¶10

Government Orders which operate in the field by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned and intimate the same to the petitioner.

¶11

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the claim of the petitioner on merits and the Authorities concerned shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 ank

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hridayanand Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hridayanand Tripathi 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

Lavish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Narayan Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagdish Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Kumar Dandautiya Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Dr. Gulabdhar Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others