Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sri Ram Kumar Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Nagar Vikas And Others - WRIT - A No. - 45497 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 17914 (15 November 2007)

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).


Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sri H.S. Srivastava has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3. However, despite time being granted repeatedly for filing counter affidavit no counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore the petition is being heard finally.

The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Nagar Palika, Hathras in the year 1973 and subsequently promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector in pursuance of order of the respondent No. 3 dated 22.9.1988. This promotion order was passed in compliance of the order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The petitioner started functioning as Revenue Inspector with effect from 24.9.1998. However, by the impugned order dated 4.6.2005 the respondent No. 3 unilaterally cancelled the said promotion granted to the petitioner at the fag end of his service when he was due to retire on 30.8.2006.

Admittedly, in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 16.6.2005 the petitioner was allowed to function as Revenue Inspector i.e., on the promoted post and he continued to hold the post till his retirement i.e., on 30.8.2006. In view of the above, the one of the prayers made in the writ petition directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as Revenue Inspector, Nagar Palika, Hathras has been rendered infructuous.

Now the only question which remains is about computation of the pension admissible to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has worked as Revenue Inspector till his retirement he is entitle to pension as per the last salary drawn by him. This preposition is not disputed by the learned Standing counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked on the post of Revenue Inspector from 24.9.1998 till his retirement on 30.8.2006 lawfully and as such is entitle to pension accordingly.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to compute the pension payable to the petitioner on his retirement as Revenue Inspector on the basis of last salary drawn by him as expeditiously as possible.




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


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 |

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