Disposed

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024WRIA/8439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench rejected preliminary objection regarding maintainability. Interim protection granted halting pension recovery for 15 years under challenged Government Order. Counter affidavit adjourned for 3 weeks. Case linked to companion writ.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted; no further recovery of commuted pension amount to be executed from the petitioner till the next date of listing.

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

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8439 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Prakash

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange And Rural Water Supply Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Rishabh Kapoor learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging provision to the extent stating restoration period of 15 years in the U.P. Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules 1941 as amended vide government order dated 8th December, 2008. Concomitant prayers thereto have also been made.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition before learned Single Bench in view of the fact that Rules of 1941 are under challenge and therefore the petition would be cognizable only by division bench.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner has refuted such a preliminary objection with submission that Rules of 1941 do not provide for commutation to be recovered in 15 years and the rules therefore are being sought to be amended by means of government order dated 8th December, 2008, which is impermissible without adequate amendment in the Rules.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that there is no provision under Rules of 1941 requiring recovery/adjustment of commuted pension within a period of 15 years and that such a provision has been sought to be incorporated in the Rules of 1941 by means of government order dated 8th December, 2008.

¶11

It therefore is apparent that it is the government order dated 8th December, 2008 which is under challenge and not the Rules of 1941. In such circumstances, the preliminary objection is rejected.

¶12

It appears that a similar objection raised earlier in Writ A No. 8003 of 2024, Arun Kumar and others versus State of U.P. has also been rejected by means of order dated 18th September,

¶13

2024.

¶14

Petitioner is retired employee of U.P. Jal Nigam and more than 10 years period has expired since his retirement. The petitioner is aggrieved by action on the part of opposite parties by deducting the amount from monthly pension for a period of 180 months (15 years) whereas the commutation amount paid at the time of retirement and the interest thereon is fully recovered in a period of 131 months (10 years and 11 months) or at best 11 years.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the manner under which the amount of recovery has been proposed is patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and uncalled for. The aforesaid amount is being recovered from the petitioners from the date of his retirement.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn attention to paragraphs 9 and 20 of the writ petition to submit that the chart indicates that commuted amount in case of petitioners with adjustment being made in their pension on a monthly basis, stands satisfied and adjusted within a period of ten years and, therefore, adjusting the aforesaid amount for a period of fifteen years amounts to charging interest at more than 12 % per annum and is therefore in the realm of unjust enrichment.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that such grievance has been noticed by the various High Courts e.g. Kerala High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court and granted some interim protection, and as such, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶18

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.5 of the writ petition which is an interim order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 2490 of 2024; Ram Saroop Jindal vs. State of Punjab and others. It is submitted that the aforesaid issue is identical with the issue of the present petitioners.

¶19

Since the recovery is being executed from the retired employees since his date of retirement and as per learned counsel for the petitioner such recovery is patently illegal and arbitrary, therefore, it appears that cause of action is recurring in nature, hence, a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit would be required from the opposite parties.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to file a detailed counter affidavit.

¶21

List and connect this case with WRIT A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and others Vs. State of U. P. and Others).

¶22

In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit.

¶23

Till the next date of listing, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this interim protection may be extended on the next date only after hearing learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 prabhat

¶25

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

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply 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

Mohd. Muzahid and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Deepak Kumar No. 062541943 and 46 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 13 Others

Narendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dinesh Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Surjan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Pratap Ojha and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 3 Others