Allowed

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2024/3319/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired Kurk Amins, sought quashing of orders stopping their pensions and a mandamus for payment of arrears. This Court, relying on its own prior judgment distinguishing similar claims, allowed the petition, quashed the orders impeding pensions, and issued a direction for immediate payment along with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of impugned orders stopping pensions; writ of mandamus for payment of dues/ex-interest on arrears ensured.

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36882

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3319 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rameshwar Prasad Maurya And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent(s).

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.

¶8

The instant petition has been filed praying for the following main relief(s):

¶9

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 20.01.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Balrampur and the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by Assistant Commissionercum-Assistant Regsitrar Cooperative, Balrampur, contained as annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively.

¶10

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay due pensions of the petitioner No.1 from the month of March, 2023 till date, petitioner No.2 from the month of December, 2022 till date and the petition No.3 from the month of November, 2022 till date and also pay arrears of due pensions.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had retired while working on the posts of Kurk Amins on various dates. Although, the petitioners were receiving regular pension but by means of the order dated 20.01.2024, 31.01.2024 & 01.03.2024, copies of which are annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively, their pensions had been stopped. The representations made in this regard have also been rejected with the result that the petitioners have not been paid pension since March, 2023, December, 2022 & November, 2022 respectively.

¶12

The Court, vide order dated 29.04.2024, had required the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions.

¶13

Today, learned Standing counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by Assistant Registrar, Balrampur, states that petitioner Nos.2 & 3 have been given pension upto November, 2023 but no instructions are forthcoming with regard to petitioner No.1.

¶14

Admittedly, the claim of Kurk Amins of the U.P. Cooperative Department has been considered by this Court in Writ A No.8425 of 2023 in Re: Mewa Lal Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 31.10.2023, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition, wherein this Court, after considering the provisions of Rule 21-A of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and Others Staff Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2005, had held that in case there is any difficulty in disbursement of salary to such persons, the State Government shall give a matching grant which may be returned back from the amount collected by the Collection In-charge in the State Treasury.

¶15

This Court had also held that there is no occasion as to why pension be not paid to the petitioner in case they are entitled for the same.

¶16

Accordingly, considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Mewa Lal Nishad (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 20.01.2024, 31.01.2024 & 01.03.2024, copies of which are annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively, so far it pertains to the impediment as indicated by the respondents for non-payment of pension to the petitioners are quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to ensure payment of pension since March, 2023 so far as it pertains to the petitioner No.1 and since December, 2023 so far as it pertains to the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 considering that the respondents have stated that pension to the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 have been paid till November, 2023. The respondents shall also ensure regular payment of pension to the petitioners from month to month.

¶17

Further, following the judgment of this Court in the case of Mewa Lal Nishad (supra), the petitioners are also entitled to payment of interest @6% per annum on the arrears of pension which have not been paid to them. Let the arrears along with interest be paid to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 S. Shivhare

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Krishna Pandey Vs Thestate of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Industries Development Deptt. Anubhag-I Lucknow and Others

Puran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Jageshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 5 Others

Smt. Anari Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Sanjeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Rafiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others