Allowed

Veerendra Prasad Khare v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024WRIA/341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought leave encashment and interest. The High Court held that a pending inquiry does not justify denying leave encashment dues to a retiree. Interest on belated payment was also awarded.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.1,18,189.83/- along with 7% interest per annum from due date within three months.

Veerendra Prasad Khare vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5492

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 341 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Veerendra Prasad Khare Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shanker Lal

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel, on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 is taken on record.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that leave encashment should be paid to the petitioner along with interest which has not been paid.

¶8

Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 argues that the said amount has not been paid on account of the fact that an inquiry has been instituted. which is pending.

¶9

It is well settled that the petitioner after retirement cannot be subjected to an inquiry in case there is no provision to hold inquiry after retirement. In any case, there is no provision under which the respondents can take shelter of in not paying the leave encashment of Rs.1,18,189.83/-. Merely because an inquiry is pending does not confer any right under any Act or Rules to deny the payment of leave encashment to which the petitioner is entitled, as such, the present petition is disposed off directing the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.1,18,189.83/- along with 7% interest per annum from the due date till actual payment/ realization within a period of three months from today.

¶10

This Court is not going into the argument that an inquiry has been instituted by the respondents at this stage.

¶11

At this stage, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondents, argues that there is no provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.

¶12

The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the respondents is patently fallacious inasmuch as it is settled

¶13

proposition of law that where retiral dues have been paid belatedly for no fault of the employee concerned then interest would be admissible on the said dues (See: Special Appeal Defective No.10 of 2015 in re: Shiv Shankar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on 15.01.2015).

¶14

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 prabhat

¶15

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

Veerendra Prasad Khare v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerendra Prasad Khare v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Rajeev Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Satyendra Dev Mani Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Mathur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Memorial Higher Secondary School, Bahraich Thru. Manager, Laxmi Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha, Lucknow and Others

Natthu Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. (Ex- Officio ) Chairperson (U.P.S.a.S) Lko. and 4 Others