Disposed

Nisar Husain v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Estate Deptt. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024WRIA/7574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for payment of withheld gratuity and arrears of service benefits. Court disposed of petition at admission, directing respondent to decide within six weeks and inform the petitioner of the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to take appropriate decision within six weeks and inform petitioner forthwith.

Nisar Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62094

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7574 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nisar Husain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Estate Deptt. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Ram Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Jai Ram Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding/directing the opposite parties to release/pay the gratuity of petitioner which has been withheld by the opposite parties since a long along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in the interest of justice.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to give the service benefit of A.C.P. available to the petitioner at 26 years satisfactory service in the department, which has fallen due on 5.5.2021 and its arrears may also be directed to pay to the petitioner by the opposite parties."

¶10

The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2022 but after his retirement, the petitioner has not been given gratuity. The learned counsel has stated that the law is trite on the point that the gratuity of the employee may not be withheld except in one situation, if the trial of any criminal case is going on but in the present case, there is no such situation. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of ACP after completion of 26 years of satisfactory service but the same has been paid relevant thereof the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss.

¶11

Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has stated that he has received complete instruction in the matter and the appropriate decision is under consideration, the same may be communicated to the petitioner very soon.

¶12

Be that as it may, if there is no legal impediment, the amount of gratuity should be paid to the petitioner with expedition and if there is any legal impediment, such legal impediment shall be

¶13

communicated to the petitioner forthwith so that the petitioner either could receive the aforesaid benefit for which the writ petition has been filed or he may take legal recourse for redressal of his grievance. But in last two years after his retirement any appropriate decision should have been taken and intimated to the petitioner, therefore, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage directing the opposite party no. 2 to take appropriate decision as directed above, with expedition preferably within a period of six weeks from the production of certified copy of the order of this Court and decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 Anurag

¶16

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

Nisar Husain v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Estate Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Husain v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Estate Deptt. and Another

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

Km. Lata Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Satya Narain Srivastava and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 3 Others

Lachhuman Singh and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development and 5 Others

Prem Veer Singh Rana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Dinesh Singh Sachan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. and Another