Armaan Khan Vs Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director,U.P State Road Transport Corporation, Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8970

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2907 of 2024

Applicant :- Armaan Khan Opposite Party :- Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director,U.P State Road Transport Corporation, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Special Appeal No. 121 of 2024 (Defective). The relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶9

"(13) To this limited extent that the services of the petitioner for the purposes of post retiral dues may be computed from the date of his initial appointment, in our humble consideration, the prayer does not suffer from laches and deserves to be considered by the respondents herein.

¶10

(14) Accordingly, the appeal as well as the writ petition is allowed in part and it is directed that the entire service period of the appellant may be considered for the purposes of payment of post retiral dues, if the same has already not been treated to be a continued service period."

¶11

Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with and an affidavit of compliance has already been filed by the respondent no. 2 giving relevant details in para 6 thereof for payment of post retiral dues by calculating entire 33 years services of the applicant. The same is quoted hereinbelow. .

¶12

" That in terms of Judgment dated 13/03/2024, while calculating the post retiral benefits, the entire 33 years of services Gratituty i.c., Rs.7,19,482/-, has been paid to the petitioner in three parts i.e., on 01/08/2022 the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.3,70,642/-, on 06/06/2024 he has

¶13

been an amount of Rs.2,83,433/- and on 23/08/2024 he has been paid the remaining amount of Rs. Rs.65,407/-. Similarly so far as leave encashment is concerned he has been made payment of Rs.1,61,241/- on 06/09/2022, and so far as group insurance is concerned an amount of Rs.45,296/- has been paid on 16/09/2022. So far as the amount of Employees Provident Fund is concerned, an total amount of Rs.6,41,125/- has been paid by the EPF Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 05/09/2023 and 06/10/2023. Thus it may be seen that the entire amount has been paid to the petitioner after calculating his entire period of service as 33 years."

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the gratuity amount has been calculated and paid by taking into account the entire service of the applicant i.e. 33 years but there is a difference in calculation of the amount. The applicant is disputing the determination of the post retiral dues.

¶15

From the perusal of the compliance affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is found that judgment and order passed in the Special Appeal has been complied with and if there is any grievance regarding the determination of payment of post retiral dues, the same cannot be decided by this Court in the present contempt petition. Furthermore, the only direction which was directed by this Court was to consider the claim of the applicant by including entire period of service of the applicant and while considering it, it shall not be rejected on the ground of laches and there is no direction for payment of any particular amount. The payment was made by taking into account to service period rendered by the applicant. In case, petitioner is still aggrieved, he may avail the remedy, as may be permissible under the law.

¶16

In view of the above, the present contempt petition is rendered infructuous and dismissed as such.

¶17

Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.2.2025

¶19

Ashish

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Armaan Khan v. Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director,U.P State Road Transport Corporation, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Armaan Khan v. Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director,U.P State Road Transport Corporation, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maharoon Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vikram Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shesh Ram Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Chandrika Prasad Vs Shri Ravindra Kumar Dir. Pension U.P. Ifmtr Lko.

Naresh Kumar Mishra Vs Shri Vidya Sagar Mishra, Superintendent of Police Rampur and Another

Prem Pal Singh Vs Atal Kumar Rai, Director Panchayatrai, Lko.