Disposed

Shyam Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024/6152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed unpaid salary and retiral dues post-retirement. The court directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter within six weeks, noting delays in certification of service records.

What did the court decide?

The competent authority (District Inspector of Schools, Amethi) is directed to take a final decision on the claim within six weeks of receiving this order.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76235

¶2

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6152 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Pratap Singh,Rajendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 5.

¶5

Despite the notice having sent to the respondent no. 6, there is no service report. However, as the matter is too trivial to keep pending before this Court, the same may be decided at this stage, to which learned Standing counsel has no objection.

¶6

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite he having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019, the respondents have failed to make the payment of salary w.e.f 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2016 after providing increment etc nor they have paid his entire retiral dues till date.

¶7

Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has invited the attention of the Court towards the averment made in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 to state that the payment of salary of the petitioner from the State Exchequer can only be in accordance with rules and only after getting the previous service and work of the petitioner certified.

¶8

It is further contended that District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 20.02.2023 has directed the committee of three members to provide a clear report after due examination of the records. Sri Mathur further states that an endevour would be made by the competent authority to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within a specified time.

¶9

Considering that despite the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019 and till date the respondents are still sitting over the payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner including his claim for payment of salary for a certain period which matter has been required to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools, Amethi vide letter dated 20.02.2023 and no final decision has

¶10

been taken in the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority who is said to be District Inspector of Schools, Amethi to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral dues and the salary for the aforesaid period.

¶11

Let such a decision be taken in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Pachhere/-

¶14

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

Shyam Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. and 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

Taruna Saxena Vs Union of India Thru. It Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications, and 2 Others

C/M Lala Ram Kumar Vidyalaya Patranga Thru. Minister Ajay Kumrey Tivari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Kshetrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajiv Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy and Ors.

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Agriculture Edu. and RESEARCHandORS

Dr. Ram Suman Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education and Research and 4 Others