Disposed

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

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023WRIA/22115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for payment of withheld gratuity and correction of pension. Court found gratuity claim redundant as already paid. Court directed respondent to consider and decide pending representation on pension correction via a reasoned order within eight weeks without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authority to consider pending representation on pension correction and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Paras Nath Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22115 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Paras Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Mohan Lal,Akhil Kumar Srivastava 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 Staterespondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent no.2, Commandant 2nd Battalion P.A.C., Sitapur, to pay with held gratuity amount of Rs.46,139/- and to correct the pension as per his last pay salary drawn which was Rs.56,900/- and his pension may be corrected on the basis of last pay drawn i.e. Rs.56,900/- only, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent no.2, Commandant 2nd Battalion P.A.C. Sitapur, to decide the representation of the petitioner to respondednt no.2, Commandant 2nd Battalion P.A.C. Sitapur, dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition), within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 02.01.2023 and it is submitted that in so far as the prayer made by the petitioner to pay gratuity to the tune of Rs.46,139/-, the same has already been paid to the petitioner and the copy of the said letter dated 28.10.2021 has also been annexed with the written instructions.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid, the prayer made by the petitioner seeking mandamus regarding the payment of gratuity is concerned, the same has become redundant, however, considering the fact that the petitioner had moved a representation to the respondent no.2, a copy of which has been

¶11

brought on record as annexure no.3 wherein he has also raised an issue regarding correcting of his pension on the basis of his last pay drawn, the same is required to be considered by the authority concerned.

¶12

Accordingly, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to call for a counter-afÏdavit rather is of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner relating to correction of his pension on the basis of his last pay drawn by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the applicable rules and intimate the same to the petitioner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the claim of the petitioner on merits and the authority shall consider the the same strictly in accordance with applicable rules.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 ank

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Nath v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Narendra Kumar Dandautiya Vs Union of India and 3 Others

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

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

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

Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others