Disposed

Chandra Bhan Patwa v. State of U.P. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024WRIA/157/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition without adjudicating merits. It directed the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2023 regarding service computation for pension and increments within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-2 to decide petitioner's representation regarding service computation within three months.

Chandra Bhan Patwa vs State of U.P. Deptt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2511

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 157 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Patwa Respondent :- State Of U.P. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supply Thru. Its Prin. Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranvijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for computing his services as Godam Chowkidaar since 09.04.1981 to November 1997 for the purposes of determining the length of qualifying service for the purposes of Pension and other retiral benefits and further direct the respondents to provide the benefits of annual increments from the initial date of appointment of the petitioner i.e. 09.04.1981 onwards and re-fix the pay scale accordingly and also fix the last salary for the purposes of Pension fixation and paid amount of the arrears with interest.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on 09.04.1981 under the Dying in Harness Rules, after the demise of his father and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022 but while determining the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, the service of the petitioner served since the year 1981 till November, 1997 has not been added and increments were also not paid to the petitioner.

¶9

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition) within a stipulated time frame as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner dated 18.12.2023 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Nitesh

¶13

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Bhan Patwa v. State of U.P. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhan Patwa v. State of U.P. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uma Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Guddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of Medical Health/Family Welfare), U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Rishabh Shukla Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and 3 Others

Ram Nawal Caretaker Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Dhruv Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others