Allowed

Phoolmati v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/1779/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition, filed by an employee engaged since 1991, sought continuation of service and payment of honorarium with arrears. The High Court directed the respondent to pay the honorarium with arrears from the date the show cause notice was issued, pending the final decision on the discrepancy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay honorarium along with arrears with effect from 28.2.2022 to the date of final orders.

Phoolmati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20515

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1779 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Phoolmati

¶5

Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Child Development And Nutrition Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶8

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to permit petitioner to continue on the post of Sahayika in the concerned Aganbari Centre and for payment of regular honorarium along with arrears after correcting entry in the computerized system with regard to petitioner's date of birth.

¶9

It has been submitted that petitioner was engaged in service in1991, but recently honorarium which was being paid to her has been stopped orally since there is discrepancy in her date of birth as recorded in her certificates with the computer deta available with the department.

¶10

Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that with regard to aforesaid, a show cause notice had been issued to petitioner on 28.2.2022 which was not replied to by the petitioner due to which her payment of honorarium has been stopped. It is however admitted that no written orders have been passed for stoppage of honorarium.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner however disputes the said facts and submits that petitioner has already submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 04.03.2022 and 07.03.2022 which have not yet been decided since no final orders have been communicated to the petitioner.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears admitted that petitioner was engaged in service in the year 1991 and has continued as such but her payment of honorarium has been stopped recently without any written orders only on account of certain discrepancy in the records pertaining to her date of birth. It is also evident that a show cause notice has been issued to petitioner but no final decision has been taken by the authorities concerned.

¶13

In view of aforesaid, since no written orders have been issued by the opposite parties stopping payment of honorarium to petitioner, it is directed that petitioner shall be paid her honorarium along with arrears with effect from 28.2.2022 which shall be paid forthwith to her till final orders are passed by the competent authority in pursuance of show cause notice dated 28.2.2022.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, petition succeeds and is allowed to the aforesaid extent at the admission stage. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 DiVYa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Phoolmati v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoolmati v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. 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

Girish Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Milk Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Guard Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Deshraj Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue,, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Mamta Gautam Vs Principal Secy.Governor Sectt. Lucknow and Ors.

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Chandrawati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health. Lko. and 2 Others