Parvati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secdy. Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 571 of 2025

Parvati Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secdy. Education Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Anurag Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

1A. Learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to correct prayer no.3 of the Writ Petition during the course of day.

¶11

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to refund the recovered amount of Rs.7,63,264/- from retiral dues. Consequential benefits along with interest payment of interest has also been sought.

¶12

It has been submitted that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.10.1983 and was conferred with the State Award for Teacher and National Award to Teacher 2001 on 05.09.2002 and in pursuance thereof, in terms of Government Orders dated 06.05.1982 and 30.12.2014 was granted extension of service and superannuated on 31.03.2021.

¶13

It is submitted that when benefit of the extended period for purposes of determination of pensionary benefits was not provided to petitioner, she filed Writ A No.2576 of 2023 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 24.01.2024.

¶14

It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid judgment has thereafter been complied with by opposite parties. It is therefore submitted that

¶15

WRIA No. 571 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

once the aforesaid period was required to be counted for purposes of pensionary benefits, no recovery thereof could have been effected.

¶18

Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner was born on 14.07.1955 and in compliance of Government Order dated 11.08.2016, her superannuation should have taken place on 31.07.2020 but she was inadvertently retired on 31.03.2021. It is furthermore submitted that benefits were accorded to petitioner for her service period upon consent letter dated 07.03.2022 indicating that she was fully aware of her actual date of superannuation and thereafter voluntarily provided consent for recovery of excess amount received by her. It is submitted that it is in terms of such consent that such recovery has been effected.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly counter affidavit, it appears that such recovery has been effected from petitioner in view of the allegation that she continued in service up till 31.03.2021 whereas she should have superannuated on 31.07.2020 and therefore excess payment was made to her.

¶20

It is not the case of opposite parties that petitioner in fact has not worked as an Assistant Teacher till 31.03.2021. Since this is an admitted fact, she was definitely entitled for payment of salary as remuneration for work conducted by her.

¶21

It is also relevant that in the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed in Writ A No.2576 of 2023, there is no such assertion has been noted on behalf of opposite parties that the date of retirement of petitioner on 31.03.2021 was incorrect. On the contrary, the said date was taken as the actual date of superannuation and it is on that basis that direction was issued to include the extended period of service for purposes of pensionary benefits.

¶22

Admittedly, the said judgment has already been complied with.

¶23

In view of discussion made here-in-above, it is thus evident that

¶24

WRIA No. 571 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

since petitioner rendered services as Assistant Teacher till 31.03.2021, she was entitled for payment of salary for the said period also in terms of judgment and order dated 24.01.2022.

¶27

Since petitioner was entitled for salary for the aforesaid period, the mere fact that she gave her consent subsequently in 2022 would be irrelevant.

¶28

In view of discussion made here-in-above, the deduction of Rs.7,63,264/- from retiral benefits of petitioner is held to be illegal. Further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite parties to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,63,264/- to petitioner expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority.

¶29

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶30

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶31

February 11, 2026

¶32

Subodh/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parvati Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secdy. Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvati Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secdy. Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Raghvendra Singh vs National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and 7 Others

Ganga Devi vs Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayti Raj and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh vs National Human Rights Commission New Delhi and 7 Others

Dinesh Chnadra Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Anubhag- 1, Lko. and Another

Bipendra Singh Mall, S.I. , Pno- 882320180, and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others