Dismissed¶¶12

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

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025WRIA/334/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commutation amount recovery from pension by installments; plea that commutation already recovered renders further recovery bad despite 15-year deduction rule; controversy held res integra per Ashok Kumar Agarwal (Writ-A 17819/2024, dt. 15.01.2025) and Radheshyam Shukla (Writ-A 19031/2024, dt. 06.03.2025); writ dismissed; Article 226; WRIT - A No. 334 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Ajit Kumar, J.; order dated 17.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

The controversy being covered by the Division Bench decisions in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (Writ-A No. 17819 of 2024) and Radheshyam Shukla (Writ-A No. 19031 of 2024), which the petitioner's counsel could not dispute or distinguish and for which no contrary Supreme Court precedent was shown, no indulgence can be granted by the Court. ¶¶11

Ram Niwas Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37782

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 334 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Narayan Mishra,Sheetendra Pratap Singh 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 :- 17.3.2025 Sanjeev

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Smt. Sangeeta Varshney vs Deepak Kumar Sharma

Smt. Leelawati vs Ashok Kumar

Pugchins Real Estate LLP vs M/S Fluper Ltd.

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

Rudra Pratap Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others