Allowed

Rama Shankar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/1138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed an order terminating a regularized seasonal clerk's services post-superannuation without disciplinary proceedings, mandating provision of post-retiral benefits and interest within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of termination order; direction to provide post-retiral benefits and interest within three months.

Rama Shankar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15991

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1138 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cane Development And Sugar Industries Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Prakash Mishra,Sudhanshu Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2, Sri Sudhanshu Chauhna, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and 5 while notice on behalf of opposite party nos.3 and 7 has been accepted by Sri Jai Prakash Mishra, Advocate.

¶7

Application filed today seeking amendment to incorporate consequential prayer is taken on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite parties do not have any objection to the application which is accordingly allowed.

¶9

Consequential amendment in the memorandum of the petition shall be incorporated during the course of day.

¶10

The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.12.2023 whereby petitioner's services as Seasonal Clerk has been terminated after his superannuation on 30.10.2022.

¶11

It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was engaged in service as Seasonal Clerk on daily wage basis whereafter his services were regularized and he was permitted to superannuate as such on 30.10.2022. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that the same has been passed on the basis of instructions given by the State Government vide order dated 19.09.2023 indicating that petitioner's regularization in service was against directions issued by the State and therefore the regularization was non-est. It is submitted that once petitioner had already superannuated from service on 30.10.2022 and there not being any provision under the service regulations for passing any such orders pertaining to termination of service, the impugned order even otherwise is bad in law. It is further submitted that bare perusal of the impugned order will make it evidence that despite

¶12

petitioner being a regularized employee, no disciplinary proceedings were undertaken by the opposite parties prior to passing the said order.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.4 and 5 has been provided written instructions in the matter dated 21.02.2024, copy of which is taken on record. The said instructions reiterate the fact that the petitioner's services were terminated in pursuance of directions issued by the State Government subsequent to his superannuation. The said instructions do not indicate any departmental inquiry having been conducted against petitioner while he was in service. No provision under law has been indicated where under petitioner could be terminated after superannuation.

¶14

Upon consideration of submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the aforesaid facts are self evident that petitioner was regularized in service as Seasonal Clerk whereafter he was permitted to superannuate from service on 30.10.2022 and impugned order dated 22.12.2023 has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the State Government on 19.09.2023, which also subsequent to petitioner's superannuation.

¶15

The instructions provided to learned counsel for opposite party nos.4 and 5 do not indicate any provision of law where under services of regularized employee can be terminated in any manner it has been done, subsequent to his superannuation. The order also does not indicate that any disciplinary proceedings or even show cause was ever issued to him.

¶16

In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 being vitiated is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to provide post retiral benefits within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite party no. 5, who shall also take decision with regard to providing interest on delayed payment to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶17

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself.

¶18

Parties to bear their own cost.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Renu/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rama Shankar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shankar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Lko. and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs the Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi and 6 Others

Ram Dhiraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 3 Others

Poonam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dr. Irfan Ahmad Mir Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry Chemicals/Fertilisers and 2 Others

Avneesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperatives Lko. and 15 Others