Ram Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025WRIA/12716/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Collection Amins granted selection grade and Assured Career Progression benefits sought revision of pension accordingly; their claim was rejected. The court relied on Arvind Kumar Srivastava to direct a personal affidavit explaining why they were singled out despite similar persons receiving benefits, and listed for further hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12716 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Prasad And 2 Others

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Saurabh Upadhyay

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶8

It has been submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Collection Amin between 1972 to 1976 and have completed 24 years' services between 1996 to 2001 and subsequently retired from services between 2010 to 2013. During the services, the petitioners were given selection grade on completion of 10 years' services and first promotional pay scale on completion of 14 years and one extra increment on completion of 19 years of services. They were entitled to second promotional pay scale on completion of 24 years' service which has also been granted to them by means of order dated 21.8.2019 passed by the Revenue Board. Despite all the service benefits pertaining to increment and Assured Career Progression having been given to the petitioners the respondents have refused to revise their pension in light of the benefits granted to them. By means of the impugned order the case of the petitioners has been rejected.

¶9

It was demonstrated by the petitioners that in similar circumstances the pension of similarly situated persons have already been revised. Pension Payment Orders of Krishna Kumar Saxena, Ram Autar Saxena, Sobaran Singh etc. have been annexed along with the writ petition indicating fresh Pension Payment Orders have been issued taking into account of the service benefits granted to them and on the basis of their last pay certificate made subsequent to their grant of benefits by the courts/authorities. In light of the above, there is no reason as to why when the respondents have themselves granted all the service benefits to the petitioners the same should not be considered at the time of their revision of pension.

¶10

We have also further noticed the judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347

¶11

where in case a benefit has been granted to a government servant the same should be extended to all the similarly situated persons and each government servant should not be forced to litigate individual cases separately for the benefits which has already been granted by the State to other similarly situated persons. We see no reason as to why the pension of the petitioners should not be revised taking into consideration the benefits granted by the respondents themselves.

¶12

Let a personal affidavit be filed by the author of the impugned order dated 31.8.2024 as to why the case of the petitioners for revision of pension has been singled out while other similarly situated person, as narrated above, have already been granted the said benefits and why the petitioners should be forced to litigate with regard to their rights which has already been recognized by the respondents themselves. Let the said affidavit be filed within next ten days.

¶13

List on 23rd January, 2025 in top ten cases.

¶14

In the meanwhile, it is open for the respondents to pass fresh orders, if any, in favour of the petitioners.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 RKM.

¶17

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

Ram Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Vimla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa and Pusthar and Ors.

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

Smt. Sarita vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others