Chandra Bhushan Shukla and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Med. and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024WRIA/11564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order, the Court stayed recovery of commuted pension amounts alleging unjust enrichment from retired UP medical staff who had already paid principal plus interest within 10 years and 11 months of retirement.

What did the court decide?

No further recovery to be executed from petitioners who have completed 10 years and 11 months from the date of superannuation.

Chandra Bhushan Shukla and 8 Others vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11564 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Shukla And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Med. And Health Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The petitioners are retired employee having superannuated from the different posts in the Medical & Health Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and more than 10 years period has expired since their retirement. The petitioner is aggrieved by action on the part of opposite parties by deducting the amount from monthly pension for a period of 180 months (15 years) whereas the commutation amount paid at the time of retirement and the interest thereon is fully recovered in a period of 131 months (10 years and 11 months) or at best 11 years.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioners has stated that the manner under which the amount of recovery has been proposed is patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and uncalled for. The aforesaid amount is being recovered from the petitioners from the date of their retirement.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioners has submit that the commuted amount stands satisfied and adjusted within a period of ten years and 11 months and, therefore, adjusting the aforesaid amount for a period of fifteen years, amounts to charging interest at more than 12 % per annum and is therefore in the realm of unjust enrichment.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that such grievance has been noticed by the various High Courts e.g. Kerala High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court and granted some interim

¶10

protection, and as such, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶11

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 7 of the writ petition which is an interim order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court relying upon the interim order granted by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.2490 of 2024; Ram Saroop Jindal versus State of Haryana & Ors . It is submitted that the aforesaid issue is identical with the issue of the present petitioners.

¶12

Since the recovery is being executed from the retired employees since their date of retirement and as per learned counsel for the petitioners such recovery is patently illegal and arbitrary, therefore, it appears that cause of action is recurring in nature, hence, a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit would be required from the opposite parties.

¶13

Connect this case with WRIT A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and others Vs. State of U. P. and Others).

¶14

In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit.

¶15

Until further orders, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners, who have completed 10 years and 11 months from the date of their superannuation. It is also made clear that in case the writ petition is dismissed, the benefit granted to the petitioners by means of the interim order shall be recovered in accordance with law.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Virendra

¶18

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

Chandra Bhushan Shukla and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Med. and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhushan Shukla and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Med. and Health Deptt. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rama Shankar @ Pappu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Shafi Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Alok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Deepu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Pawan Khera vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another