Harishchandra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025WRIA/109/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Social Welfare Department employees challenged continued pension deductions for commuted amount over 15 years despite full recovery within about 11 years. Court held cause of action recurring, directed counter affidavit, connected with a similar writ, and stayed further recovery for petitioners past 10 years and 11 months of superannuation.

What did the court decide?

Until further orders, no further recovery shall be executed from petitioners who have completed 10 years and 11 months from superannuation.

Harishchandra and Another vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 109 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Harishchandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Priya Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The petitioners are retired employee having superannuated from different posts from Social Welfare Department, Govt. of U.P. on different dates and more than 10 years period has expired since their retirement. The petitioners are 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.

¶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 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 an interim order dated 20.11.2024 passed by High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in the case of M.D. Nazeer Ahmed & Others Vs. The State of Telangana & Others (Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2024) relying upon the interim order granted by various High

¶11

Courts. It is submitted that the aforesaid issue is 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 opposite parties.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Until further orders, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners, who have completed 10 years and 11 months from the date of their superannuation. 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.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 8.1.2025

¶18

Ravi/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harishchandra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. 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

Mohammad Aleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Chaman Lal Diwakar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Sanjay Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. , Lko. and 6 Others

Sarla Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko and 5 Others