Disposed

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Addl.Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag , Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024WRIA/10459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Ayurvedic Medical Officer, approached the High Court via writ petition regarding non-grant of annual increment and arrears of pension compared to junior colleagues. The court dismissed merits but granted liberty to make a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move a fresh representation to Opposite Party No.1 within ten days for reconsideration within eight weeks.

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74623

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10459 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Addl.Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag , Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to re-fix the last pay of the petitioner of Rs.1,34,300/- and thereafter make the payment of arrears of pay/arrears of pension along with the interest.

¶8

It has been submitted that the petitioner who has retired after completion of 31 years of regular service as Ayurvedic Medical Officer and although other similarly situated / junior employees who have retired on 30th June and after granting annual increment on 1st of July, 2023 their last pay is re-fixed as Rs.1,34,300/- and thereafter they are paid arrears of pension but the petitioner who has attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2023 has not been granted the annual increment and his pension has been fixed on last pay i.e. Rs.1,30,400/-.

¶9

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case the case of the petitioner is duly considered and decided by opposite party No.1 with expedition.

¶10

Learned Standing counsel does not object to the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation to opposite party No.1 within ten days from today. In case, such a representation is received opposite party No.1 shall consider and decide the same within a further period of eight weeks, in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶12

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 12.11.2024/RKM.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Addl.Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag , Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Addl.Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag , Lko.

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

Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs Navdeep Shukla, Up-Zila Adhikari, Tehsil-Lalganj, Rae Bareli

Madhubala Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Seema Sachan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Women and Child Development Lko and 4 Others

Ram Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko and 3 Others

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 3 Others