Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIVRAJ SINGH TYAGI versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shivraj Singh Tyagi v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 30115 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 3266 (13 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.30

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 30115 of 2000

Shivraj Singh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Heard Sri Manoj kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.  Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. This writ petition is being decided at the admission stage in the terms of the Rules of the Court.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 1st July, 1977 and retired on 30.6.1990 as a Cooperative Inspector ' Group II'/Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative) after having worked for a period of 13 years, but he has not been paid his pensionary/retiral benefit in spite of several requests/reminders.  Being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.  In the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted the above said facts and has also filed Government Order dated 1.7.1989  (Annexure No. C.A.1 )  This Government Order was issued due to the difficulty being faced by a temporary/ad-hoc employees, who reached  the age of superannuation without being regularised and having worked continuously-regularly for a period of more than 10 years, they were not provided the retiral benefits, as provided to the permanent employees.  However, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken shelter to the ground that the U.P. Public Service Commission had not decided the matter regarding regularization of the services of the petitioner, and which was still pending before it on the date of filing of the counter affidavit.  It has been mentioned, therein that the decision regarding providing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner should be decided only after the U.P. Public Service Commission gives its decision on the regularization of the service of the petitioner.  It has also been stated therein that the encashment leave for a period of 240 days has already been sanctioned for the payment to the petitioner vide order dated 11.9.2000. A lame excuse has also been made in the said counter affidavit on the ground of time taken for preparation of a duplicate one due the loss of the service book of the petitioner.

I find that the respondents have unnecessarily delayed the pensionary/retiral benefit to the petitioner on flimsy grounds.  It was the duty of the respondents to have sought for recommendation from the U.P.Public Service Commission at the earliest and acted thereupon.  The petitioner cannot be blamed for any such delay, which has been allegedly caused due to the non-communication of the decision by the U.P. Public Service Commission.    More so, the petitioner under normal course should have been provided with the entire pensionary/retiral benefits in terms of the said Government Order dated 1.7.1989, which has been issued in the interest of similarly circumstanced incumbents as the petitioner.  I do not find any valid and reasoned ground for not releasing the pensionary/retiral benefits also.

In view of the same, the respondents are directed to release the pensionary/retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum from the date he was entitled to receive the same till the date of payment within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. This period is more than sufficient for the respondents to complete any formalities, required under law.  

With this direction, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Dt. 13.2.2006

pkc/11                                


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.