Disposed

Mohd. Sayeed and Another v. Union of India Thru. Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/9515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired CAG audit officers, sought a declaration for annual increments denied due to superannuation. The High Court declined to decide merits and directed the Director General of Audit to decide their pending representations within two months with reasoned orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Director General of Audit to decide pending representations within two months with reasoned order.

Mohd. Sayeed and Another Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70594

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9515 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Sayeed And Another Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Comptroller And Auditor General Of India New Delhi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanandan Kumar Misra,Bina Kumari Bajpai,Rajeev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were appointed as an Audit Officers under the control and supervision of Comptroller and Auditor General of India and retired form services after attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2011 and 30th June 2019 respectively.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that there is a provisions of providing to annual increment to state employee in case they complete one year satisfactory service prior to their superannuation date as such petitioners have completed their full year service in satisfactory manners as on 30th June, but their due increment from 1st July has been refused because they were not in services.

¶9

In this regard, it has been submitted that petitioners have given representations dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure No. 4) and dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure No. 5 ) respectively which are pending consideration and have not been decided so far. He further submits that grievance of the petitioners would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 2-Director General of Audit (Finance and Communication), Sham Nath Marg, Delhi 56, considers and decides the representation of the petitioner in the time bound manner.

¶10

He further submits that grievance of the petitioners would be sufficiently redressed in case respondent no. 2-Director General of Audit (Finance and Communication), Sham Nath Marg, Delhi 56, considers and decides the representation of the petitioner in the time bound manner.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2-Director General of Audit (Finance and Communication), Sham Nath Marg, Delhi 56, to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure No. 4) and dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure No. 5 ) expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, with speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law .

¶13

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Ravi/

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sayeed and Another v. Union of India Thru. Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sayeed and Another v. Union of India Thru. Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and Another

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

Ram Sager and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Its General Manager Mn. of Railways Rail Bhavan and 2 Others

Sakir Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 4 Others

Bimalesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Bahadur Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Alok Sinha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko and 4 Others

Neeraj Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another