Disposed

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communica. New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024WRIA/238/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, superannuated in 2021 as Assistant Manager, sought payment of privileged leave encashment with interest. Respondents admitted liability but cited financial constraints. Court directed Unit Head (M), ITI Limited to pay within two months, failing which 6% per annum interest applies.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay privileged leave encashment within two months; 6% per annum interest if delayed beyond that.

Jitendra Kumar Singh vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7154

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 238 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Communica. New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deo Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dwijendra Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted in the office of Central Government Counsel.

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to make payment of retiral benefit such as privileged leave encashment along with interest.

¶8

It has been submitted that petitioner has been superannuated on 30.09.2021 on the post of Assistant Manager but the aforesaid retiral benefit has not yet been paid to him.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 on the basis of written instructions however submits that the opposite parties do not dispute the liability make payment of the aforesaid benefits to petitioner but the same could not be paid due to financial constrain being faced by them. It is submitted that the payments shall be made shortly.

¶10

In view of submission by learned counsel for parties, the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Unit Head (M), ITI Limited is directed to ensure payment of the privileged leave encashment to petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. In case payment is not paid within the time frame stipulated, the opposite parties shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of actual payment.

¶11

With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Satish

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communica. New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communica. New Delhi 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

Shanti Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Rama Kant Vs Provincial Cooperative Federation of U.P. Thru.Its Managing Director and 2 Others

Vineeta Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Adhishasi Adhikari, Nagarpalika Parishad, Raebareli and Another

Smt. Manoj Bala Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education U.P. and 3 Others

Yadav Nisha Ramkumar @ Yadav Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Basic Edu. Lko.