Disposed

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

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023WRIA/9646/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the denial of G.P.F. and interest. Acknowledging that the principal amount was paid, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach a Finance Officer for a decision on the interest within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the Finance Officer for a decision on interest within six weeks.

Dr. Smt. Raj Kumari Pandey Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135574

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9646 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Smt. Raj Kumari Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

On the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner Finance and Account Officer Directorate Higher Education, Prayagraj to be impleaded as fifth respondent.

¶7

Affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of third respondent is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Avaniesh Kumar Rai (AOR No.A/A0349/21) holding brief of Sri Sankalp Narain learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Shailendra Singh learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶9

This Court on 30.5.2023 while entertaining a writ petition has sought compliance affidavit from the official respondents but notices were not issued to the fourth respondent.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the notices to be issued upon fourth respondent be waived off and the liability of interest is to be shouldered by the Official Respondents (Educational Authorities).

¶11

Thus, the notices be issued to the fourth respondent stands waived off.

¶12

The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed as ad hoc Lecturer in Sanskrit in Mahila Degree College Basti on 16.6.1989 and thereafter he was transferred to Sanskrit D.A.V. P.G.College, Gorakhpur and he joined the post in question on 18.4.2000 and he superannuated on 30.6.2022.

¶13

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that all the payments have been made except G.P.F.

¶14

Prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to quash the order dated 5.11.2022 whereby G.P.F. has been denied and the interest has also not been paid.

¶15

This Court on 30.5.2023 sought compliance affidavit from the respondents.

¶16

Today a compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent, Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur wherein in paragraph 5 it has been asserted that an amount of Rs.4,16,0453/ with relation to G.P.F. has been credited in the Bank Account of the writ petitioner on 6.7.2023.

¶17

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner on service of the said affidavit has not disputed the said amount. However, according to him he is entitled for the payment of interest.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that though it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was entitled to G.P.F. and the amount was deposited in wrong head under some transaction but so far as the payment of interest is concerned, the same is to be considered by the Finance and Account Officer to the office of the Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur.

¶19

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner holding brief of Sri Sankalp Narayan submits that the writ petitioner shall file a comprehensive representation before the fifth respondent who shall advert to the same.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that they do not propose to any further affidavit.

¶21

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a a comprehensive application/representation before approach the fifth respondent, Finance and Account Officer Directorate Higher Education, Prayagraj who shall decide it within a a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order bearing in mind the entitlement of the interest as per the Government Orders and the Statutory Rules in vogue as well as the the admitted fact as emerging from the affidavit filed by the respondents that there is no allegation of fault of the petitioner herein which occasioned delay in payment of the same. The said exercise shall be done within six weeks.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 piyush

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Smt. Raj Kumari Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 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. Hari Ram Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others