Dismissed

Rampal Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025WRIA/718/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

commutation amount; recovery from pension by installments; 15-year deduction rules; Article 226 writ; res integra; Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India Writ-A 17819/2024 dt. 15.01.2025; Radheshyam Shukla v. State of U.P. Writ-A 19031/2024 dt. 06.03.2025; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Ajit Kumar, J.; petition dismissed; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:37799.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rampal Singh and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 7… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37799

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 718 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rampal Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Singh,J.P. 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

Rampal Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rampal Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Diwedi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vipul Tiwari and 12 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Gulnaz vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Braj Bhushan Rai and 10 Othes vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Dexit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others