Dismissed

Jai Ram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024/9684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought to reopen a controversy regarding 50% pension forfeiture previously settled by the Supreme Court. The court held that the petitioner cannot bypass the settled legal issue to claim full pension.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the request to reopen the pension forfeiture issue and grant full pension was rejected.

Jai Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71018

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9684 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jai Ram Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Gupta,Sarvesh Kumar Shukla

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶10

The dispute in the present case pertains to the punishment awarded to the petitioner by means of order dated 31.07.1995 whereby 50% of his pension was forfeited. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition in the year 2009 which was numbered as Claim Petition No. 1093 of 2009, which was rejected by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal only on the ground of limitation considering the fact that the original application has to be preferred within a period of one year from the cause of action. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 20.07.2009 had preferred a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1401 (SB) of 2010, which was also dismissed by means of order dated 18.12.2012 wherein the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal was upheld. The petitioner thereafter had approached the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed by means of order dated 09.05.2013 in SLP (C) No. 16905 of 2013.

¶11

It is after rejection of the special leave petition on 09.05.2013, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite parties to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. The seemingly innocuous prayer made by the petitioner in the present case discloses that the petitioner has again sought to assail the order dated 31.07.1995 and seeks a direction that he should be granted full 100% pension with arrears along with the interest. In effect the petitioner seeks to reopen the entire controversy, which was settled by dismissal of his special leave petition dated 09.05.2013.

¶12

Undoubtedly though the prayer seems to be innocuous but the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the controversy by passing an order to the appropriate authority to decide his representation wherein the same controversy pertaining to his punishment order dated 31.07.1995 has sought to be reopened. Accordingly the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶13

The issue raised by him has been settled by dismissal of his special leave petition and consequently the same issue cannot be permitted to reopen.

¶14

In view of the above, the petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Considering the fact that the petitioner has since retired from the service, this Court is not passing any orders for imposition of costs.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Virendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Ram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivnandan Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Savitri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Head Constable Driver, Personnel No. 842540085, Devendra Singh vs State U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Constable Civil Police Personnel No. 112492205, Lalit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 5 Others

Sushmita Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko and 2 Others