Dismissed

Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024WRIA/4026/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench dismissed a writ petition contending the failure to deduct G.P.F. and the imposition of the New Pension Scheme. The court relied on a Full Bench decision, granting liberty to approach the competent authority with a fresh representation framed around that precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move a fresh representation to the competent authority within ten days, to be decided within two months.

Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13654

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4026 of 2012

¶4

Petitioner :- Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Petitions in question has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondents to allot the number of G.P.F. of the petitioners w.e.f. from the month of March, 2011 each and every month without compelling them to fill up the form of contributory pension scheme in any manner and with a further prayer to quash the impugned order dated 16.03.2012.

¶8

Directions has also been sought to the respondents to restrain the respondents from compelling the petitioners to opt/fill up the contributory pension scheme and not to treat their appointment as fresh appointment for the said purposes.

¶9

Learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners were initially appointed in Lok Nirman Vibhag, District Pratapgarh on the posts of Mate, Beldar and Chaukidar on the muster roll basis. Thereafter, after satisfaction of work and conduct the respondents promoted the petitioners on the post of work charge establishment and later on the respondents regularized the services of the petitioners.

¶10

It is further submitted that present petition has been filed challenging the illegal action on the part of respondents thereby not deducting the G.P.F. from the salary of the petitioners w.e.f. March, 2011.

¶11

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy involved in the present petition has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of 13626 of 2017 ( Namo Narayan Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) alongwith other connected matters and the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the said judgment. The relevant extract of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶12

"6. From a perusal of the above response of the State to issue no. 1, as noticed in the order passed by this Court on November 12, 2021, it is evident that in case of all the tubewell operators-petitioners regularized after April 1, 2005 and, who are still in service and in whose cases, the General Provident fund is being deducted after the

¶13

date of their regularization till date, the amount accumulated along with interest accrued thereon as per G.P.F. Rules, shall be transferred to the pension fund."

¶14

7. In addition to that, the State shall transfer its contribution in the pension fund from the date of regularization of the aforesaid employees in lump-sum as per the Rules applicable in different cases.

¶15

8. As far as the issue no. 2 is concerned, there are certain employees in whose cases neither G.P.F. was deducted nor account was opened under the New Pension Scheme, though their services were regularized from different dates after April 1, 2005. In that case also, the employees, who were regularized and are still in service, will fill up their forms for becoming members of the New Pension Scheme. In future, deductions from their salary shall be made as per pension scheme and transferred in the pension account along with share of the State. For the period prior thereto, with effect from the date of their regularization, the State's contribution shall be deposited in pension fund in lump-sum. As far as employees are concerned, option shall be given to them. In case, they wish to contribute the aforesaid arrears in installments, liberty may be given.

¶16

9. As far as issue no. 3 is concerned, the stand in respect of the amount already lying in the G.P.F. account of the employees, who have retired from the service, is that the same has already been returned to them along with interest. In case, it is not so, the same shall be returned to them along with interest from the date it fell due up to the date of payment as per the G.P.F. Rules, within a period of three months.

¶17

10. As far as the issue no. 4 is concerned, in the case of employees, who have been regularized after April 1, 2005, if any amount is lying in the G.P.F. account to their credit before the date of their regularization, the same shall be transferred in the pension fund account. There will not be any requirement of the State to contribute to the pension fund for any period prior to their regularization.

¶18

11. In view of the aforesaid directions in terms of the afÏdavit filed by the State, the issues raised in the bunch of petitions stand resolved.

¶19

12. The petitions are disposed of, accordingly."

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners have confined their prayer to the extent that the liberty may be given to the petitioners to move a fresh representation to the competent authority within a period of ten days from today and competent authority may be directed to take a decision in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Namo Narain Rai (supra ).

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel has very fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners herein are covered by the decision of full bench in the case of Namo Narain Rai (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsels for the petitioners and he has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation to the competent authority

¶23

annexing therewith a copy of judgment and order dated 26th of November, 2021 as well as certified copy of this order within a period of ten days from today. If any such representation is preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of two months, thereafter.

¶24

The writ petition is finally disposed of in the terms as mentioned hereinabove.

¶25

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 DiVYa

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Women Constable Civil Police Personnel No. 204072490 Anjali Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Bal Krishna Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pashudhan, Lko. and 5 Others

Sindhu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 5 Others

Abdul Razzaq Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Revenue Lucknow

Narendra Nath Agrawal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rama Shankar Nisad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another