Partly allowed

Ajeet Singh and 19 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024WRIA/9496/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order stopped recovery of pension deductions for retired employees who had completed over 10 years and 11 months since superannuation and granted three weeks for a counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on further recovery execution from petitioners who have completed 10 years and 11 months from superannuation date. Time granted to file counter affidavit.

Ajeet Singh and 19 Others vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9496 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Priya Srivastava,Hemendra Pratap Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioners are retired employees having superannuated as Superintending Engineer/Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers from the Public Works Department and more than 10 years period has expired since their retirement. The petitioners are aggrieved by action on the part of respondents 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.

¶7

Learned counsel for 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 their retirement.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn attention to paragraph 3 of the writ petition to submit that the commuted amount stands satisfied and adjusted within a period of ten years and 11 months 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.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶10

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.5 of the writ petition which is an interim order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court relying upon the interim order granted by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.14003 of 2024; Sham Sunder Alias Sham Sunder Khurana & Ors. versus State of Haryana & Ors . It is submitted that the aforesaid issue is

¶11

identical with the issue of the present petitioners.

¶12

Since the recovery is being executed from the retired employees since their date of retirement and as per learned counsel for the petitioners 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 respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

Connect this case with WRIT A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and others Vs. State of U. P. and Others) and list on 11.11.2024.

¶15

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

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners, who have completed 10 years and 11 months from the date of their superannuation. However, it is made clear that this interim protection may be extended on the next date only after hearing learned counsel for the parties. It is also made clear that in case the writ petition is dismissed, the benefit granted to the petitioners by means of the interim order shall be recovered in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 A. Verma

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

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

Ajeet Singh and 19 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Singh and 19 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 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

Rakesh Kumar Singhal (Wrongly Mentioned as Rakesh Kumar Singhal in the Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sarojini Agrahari @ Sarojana Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Krishna Kant Agnihotri Vs Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko.

Union of India Thru. Oic A.S.C. (Supply) Supp Depot Mathura Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Chandan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others