Disposed

Dr. Mahendra Giri v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023WRIA/7227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a superannuated Associate Professor, challenged non-payment of his GPF amount. The Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file a comprehensive representation to the fifth respondent regarding interest entitlement, directing a decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to prefer a comprehensive representation to the fifth respondent to decide on interest entitlement within six weeks.

Dr. Mahendra Giri Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135574

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7227 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Mahendra Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Rajendra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Affidavit of compliance filed today on behalf of the sixth respondent dated 08.07.2023 after serving an advanced copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the present petition is that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the Shivpati Post Graduate College, Siddharth Nagar and he after completion of 62 years was superannuated on 19.09.2021. According to the writ petitioner, the amount with relation to GPF to the tune of Rs.47,29,214/- has not been paid. Despite various representation and request, the same has not been released in favour of the petitioner. This Court on 15.05.2023 and on 29.05.2023, while entertaining the writ petition, directed the Regional Higher Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar to file an affidavit as to why and under what circumstances, GPF amount has remained unpaid to the petitioner.

¶8

Today, an affidavit on behalf of the sixth respondent has been filed wherein in paragraph-6, it has been stated that an amount of Rs.20 lacs have been deposited, however, in so far as the balance amount of Rs.27,29,214/-, which is due to the petitioner, certain time has been sought to make the said residue payment.

¶9

At this juncture, Sri Ajai Rajendra who appears for the writ petitioner submits that once stand has come up on behalf of the respondent that there was no fault of the writ petitioner and rather there was a fallacy in the stand of the respondents, particularly, in view of the fact that the amount stood deposited in a wrong head, thus the writ petitioner is entitled to a penal interest also.

¶10

To the said argument, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to interest on the late payment of GPF is a matter, which is to be taken care of by the fifth respondent and thus, respondent no.5 shall take a conscious decision in this regard

¶11

looking into the aspect regarding the entitlement, the Government Order and statutory guidelines already occupying the field.

¶12

To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner gracefully accepts the same.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any further affidavit granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the fifth respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same proceeded to decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the stand taken in the affidavits before this Court that there has been no fault on behalf of the petitioner and further looking into account the relevant statutory enactments as well as guidelines governing the field in so far as payment of interest is concerned.

¶14

With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed off .

¶15

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Mahendra Giri v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mahendra Giri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Pal Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools and 3 Others

C/M Shri Bhuwal Smarak Sanskrit Mahavidyalay Ghaghara Latghat Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Shankar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. (Smt.) Sunita Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Hari Ram Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Dr. Smt. Raj Kumari Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others