Disposed

Krishna Kant Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/5469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order rejecting a claim for interest on delayed post-retirment dues. The court found the Accounts Officer was not the competent authority. It directed the Managing Director to decide the grievance within the stipulated time frame.

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director was directed to decide the petitioner's grievance within the indicated time frame.

Krishna Kant Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49073

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5469 of 2024 Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 4.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 05.04.2024 purportedly rejecting petitioner's claim for interest on delayed payment of post retiral dues.

¶8

It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had filed Writ-A No. 1158 of 2024 for the relief of payment of interest on delayed payment of post retiral dues. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2024 directing the competent authority to decide petitioner's grievance.

¶9

It is submitted that it is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed by the Accounts Officer who is not the competent authority, which in fact is the opposite party no. 3, Managing Director of the Corporation. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no discussion of petitioner's entitlement for interest in the impugned order.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 2 to 4 on the basis of instructions submits that a decision by the competent authority will be taken expeditiously in terms of directions issued by this Court earlier.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and particularly the fact that the order impugned dated 05.04.2024 does not advert to petitioner's grievance for payment of interest on delayed payment of post retiral benefits, the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Managing Director U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow is directed to decide petitioner's grievance in terms of directions issued by this Court on 16.02.2024 within the time frame so indicated.

¶12

With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Satish

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Krishna Kant Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kant Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 5 Others

Sushil Kumar Rathore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Satish Mohan Seth Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Min. of Communications and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Mini. Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Mini. Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others