Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAYYED ANBARUL HAQ versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sayyed Anbarul Haq v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9853 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9063 (5 May 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. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9853 of 2006

Sayyad Anbarul Haq

Versus

State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner had been discharging his duties as Assistant Inspector with Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2000. After being superannuated, petitioner was expecting that payment of his pension and other retiral benefits such as gratuity and earned leave encashment would be ensured by due date, but no steps were undertaken for payment and the petitioner in his turn represented the matter again and again. Objection was raised only on  front that initial appointment of petitioner was made at very less age. Petitioner submits that the said objection was duly removed and thereafter retiral benefits were also ensured to him and pension was paid since August, 2003. However, rest of the amount has not been paid, as such present writ petition has been filed. On presentation of writ petition, this Court on 17.02.2006 passed following order:

"Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Sri Amar Nath Tiwari represents respondent No. 2.

The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite repeated representations, his retiral dues have not been paid .

An employee is entitled to get retiral dues immediately after retirement, for which formalities are to be got completed before the                                                                                      date of retirement of the employee.

Non-payment of retiral dues is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution.

In these circumstances, the respondents  are directed either to pay the retiral dues of the petitioner with 10% compound interest from the due date till date date of payment within six weeks from today or they shall show case by filing counter affidavit within one month. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter. In case no counter affidavit is filed or no cause is shown, the respondent No. 2 shall personally appear before this Court on 20.04.2006 to explain their action/inaction in the matter.

List this case on 20.04.2006"

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein, it has been contended that petitioner's date of birth as given and shown in  service record is 07.07.1940 and he was initially appointed on class IV post by way of stop gap arrangement on 20.12.1956 i. e. at the age of 16 years which is less than 18 years which is the minimum age of appointment. It has been contended that thus entry in service was incorrect and as such for the period for which he was not entitled  for the pension same has been withheld. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and the statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been rebutted and that of writ petition has been reiterated.

After pleadings have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for  final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri R. P. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that from the own showing, petitioner's initial appointment was made by way of stop gap arrangement, and the said stop gap arrangement cannot be impediment in service of petitioner, and the current age of petitioner is entered in service record and full service has been rendered, consequently, retiral benefits cannot be withheld. Sri Amar Nath Tiwar, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, on the other hand, contended that objection raised by Nagar Nigam have not been removed, as such pension for 2000-2003 has been rightly withheld.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed position which emerges is to the effect that initial appointment of the petitioner was by way of stop gap arrangement, his date of birth has been entered and shown as 07.07.1940 in his service record prepared by Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2000. During all these periods, while petitioner was in service no objection was raised and after rendering entire service when petitioner attained the age of superannuation all sorts of objections are being raised. Petitioner submits that objection was removed on the statement of the petitioner that initial appointment was by way of stop gap arrangement and same be not treated as part of service. Accepting this statement of petitioner petitioner's pension has been computed and pension has been allowed, as such respondents have no authority to withhold the arrears of pension from the date of retirement till August, 2003. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case V.L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (SC) F.L.R. 790 has held that if retiral dues of an employee are not paid within time, he is entitled to 18% interest. In case of Srikant Mishra and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47594 of 2000 vide judgment dated 3.11.2000 for not payment of the retiral dues in time interest at the rate of 18% has been allowed.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of pension from the date of retirement till August, 2003, other post retiral benefits like gratuity and earned leave encahsment, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that 10% compound interest would also be payable from due date till the date of actual payment.

05.05.2006

SRY.


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.