Allowed

Jai Ram Pandey and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023WRIA/7469/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an order rejecting pension claims and directed respondents to sanction and disburse monthly pension including arrears with interest. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondents to extend pension benefits available to similarly situated employees in a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of order No.1628/77-1/2022 and direction to respondents to extend pension benefits, including arrears and compound interest, available in Writ-A No. 61107 of 2013.

Jai Ram Pandey and 18 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120367

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7469 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jai Ram Pandey And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter No.1628/77-1/2022 dated 17.10.2022 issued by the respondent no.2;

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction and disburse the monthly pension to the petitioners including the arrears of pension from the date of their retirement and also to pay compound interest over the arrears of pension from the date of its entitlement till the date of actual payment."

¶10

It is the case of the petitioners that being similarly situated persons who have been rendering his services in U.P. Government Cement Factory Churk, Mirzapur in between 1962 to 1967 and retired after attaining the age of 58 years in between 1994 to 2003.

¶11

For seeking pensionary and retiral benefits, certain set of similarly situated employees of the Cement Factory already preferred Writ-A No. 47974 of 2008 (Gorakh Nath Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 through which the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sonbhadra was directed to reconsider the petitioners' application afresh and pass an appropriate order within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order in

¶12

light of the order dated 02.08.2005 issued by the Commissioner and Director of Industries, U.P. Centre. It was also directed to pay cost amounting to Rs. 16,000/- i.e Rs. 1,000/- to each of the petitioners which shall be paid within the same period.

¶13

In compliance of the direction issued by this Court dated 12.03.2013, the General Manager vide his undated order decided and rejected the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that as per provisions contained under Regulation 361 of Civil Services Regulations, the service must be under Government; the employment must be substantive and permanent and the service must be paid by the Government. It has also been observed that the claim of pensionary benefit could only be accorded if the rules and regulations had been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such, the claim of pensionary benefit has not been accorded.

¶14

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, certain set of similarly situated retired employees preferred Writ-A No. 61107 of 2013 and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2016 through which the respondents were directed to calculate and pay the entire retiral dues of the petitioners within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶15

In the instant matter, the petitioners being similarly situated persons who were appointed during the same period and retired during the same period when the petitioners in the abovementioned petition inducted in service and retired after attaining the age of superannuation, rendering regular services till the age of 58 years and as such, seeking parity to the petitioners in Writ-A No. 61107 of 2013 (Gorakh Nath Pandey and 15 others vs. State of U.P. and others) can be extended in favour of the petitioners here also.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel is also in the agreement of the same observation that no fruitful purpose will be served for keeping the matter pending and by way of calling counter afÏdavit on the similar set of

¶17

facts which has already been narrated while adjudicating the matter by the co-ordinate Bench which culminated into order dated 12.04.2016.

¶18

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the order dated order/letter No.1628/77-1-2022 dated 17.10.2022 is here by quashed and set aside, the respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to extend the similar benefit in favour of the petitioners available in the instant writ petition from serial No. 1 to 19 as extended vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2016 passed in Writ-A No. 61107 of 2013.

¶19

Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Rakesh

¶21

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

Jai Ram Pandey and 18 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ram Pandey and 18 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs Additional Chier Secretary and 5 Others

Lalit Kumar Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Chandra Mohan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arjun Maurya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nisha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others