Writ petition challenging recovery of commutation amount from pension in installments. Court found issue covered by its earlier Division Bench decisions, which petitioners could not distinguish, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37801
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 901 of 2025
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Khare And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Anil Mishra,Ram Ji Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In view of the above, no indulgence can be granted by this Court in such matter.
Thus petition is dismissed in the light of the law laid down in aforesaid quoted authorities of this Court.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Sanjeev
Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery of the commutation amount by installments from pension is permissible despite the commutation amount already having been recovered.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others v. Union of India and anotherRelied on
Writ - A No.- 17819 of 2024 decided on 15th January, 2025
Radheshyam Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and othersRelied on
Writ - A No.- 19031 of 2024 decided on 6th March, 2025
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Kumar Khare
State of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
