Dismissed¶12

Dr. Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025WRIA/1679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commutation amount recovery from pension by installments; writ petition under Article 226 dismissed following Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (W.A. 17819/2024, dt. 15.01.2025) and Radheshyam Shukla v. State of U.P. (W.A. 19031/2024, dt. 06.03.2025); rules permit pension deduction for 15 years; Allahabad High Court, single judge Ajit Kumar, J., order dated 24.3.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:43158.

What did the court decide?

The controversy is covered by the Division Bench decision in Ashok Kumar Agarwal and the coordinate Bench decision in Radheshyam Shukla; petitioner's counsel could not dispute the facts, could not plead that the judgments were distinguishable on law or on facts, and placed no Supreme Court judgment to show they are not binding judicial precedents. ¶10

Dr. Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43158

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1679 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Arvind Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manju Verma,Pradeep Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶7

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have questioned recovery of the commutation amount given to the petitioners, by means of installments from pension.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that since amount paid as commutation has already stood recovered, further recovery from the pension of petitioner is bad even though rules provide for deductions for a period of 15 years.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the controversy is no more res integra in the light of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others v. Union of India and another passed in Writ - A No.- 17819 of 2024 decided on 15th January, 2025 which has also been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others along with bunch matters passed in Writ - A No.- 19031 of 2024 decided on 6th March, 2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above facts, nor could take any plea that above judgments are distinguishable on law or on facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not place any judgment of Supreme Court to hold that judgments relied upon by learned Standing Counsel are not binding judicial precedents.

¶11

In view of the above, no indulgence can be granted by this Court in such matter.

¶12

Thus petition is dismissed in the light of the law laid down in aforesaid quoted authorities of this Court.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Atmesh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surendra Kumar Mishra and 22 Others vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Ram Niwas Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghanshyam Singh vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Indradev Yadav vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Praveen Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another