Disposed

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

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023WRIA/8846/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a superannuated lecturer claiming non-payment of GPF and interest. Since the amount had been credited, the court directed the relevant authority to decide the claim for interest within six weeks, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file representation regarding interest claim; respondent to decide within six weeks.

Dr. Hari Ram Yadav 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. - 8846 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Hari Ram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bikash Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bikash Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents 1 to 5.

¶7

The writ petition was entertained by this Court on 22.05.2023. However, notices were not issued to the sixth respondent.

¶8

The learned counsels for the parties at the very juncture submit that the notices to be issued to the sixth respondent be waved off, as the entitlement of the interest is a liability, which is to be shouldered by the official respondents themselves being the educational authorities.

¶9

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.

¶10

The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the present petition is that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the sixth respondent institution and he after completion of 62 years was superannuated on 30.06.2021. According to the writ petitioner, the amount with relation to GPF to the tune of Rs.39,73,786/- has not been paid. Despite various representation and request, the same has not been released in favour of the petitioner. This Court on 22..05.2023 and on 25.05.2023, while entertaining the writ petition, directed the Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur to file an affidavit as to why and under what circumstances, GPF amount has remained unpaid to the petitioner.

¶11

Today, an affidavit on behalf of the fifth respondent has been filed wherein in paragraph-5, it has been stated that an amount of Rs.3973786/- have been credited on 07.07.2023 in the petitioner's account.

¶12

At this juncture, Sri Bikash Kumar Mishra 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

¶13

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.

¶14

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 third respondent and, thus, respondent no.3 shall take a conscious decision in this regard looking into the aspect regarding the entitlement, the Government Order and statutory guidelines already occupying the field.

¶15

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

¶16

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 third 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Hari Ram Yadav 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

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. Mahendra Giri Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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