Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOGENDRA SINGH versus COMMISSIONER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jogendra Singh v. Commissioner & Others - WRIT - A No. 41171 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 4546 (15 March 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. V.M. SAHAI, J.

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Mishra and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner was working as Deputy Regional Marketing Officer on a Class-II post. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.1999. After the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for releasing his post retiral benefits on 22.7.1999. The respondents did not pay the post retiral benefit to the petitioner and passed an order on 6.2.2001 and awarded adverse entry to the petitioner. By another other dated 17.3.2001 the respondents have directed for recovering a sum of Rs.18,817.30 from the petitioner on the ground that the Government has suffered a loss due to the negligence of the petitioner. In spite of the stop order dated 19.4.2006, the State Government has not filed any counter affidavit. It has been settled that after superannuation of a government servant if there was no departmental proceeding pending against him, then only the course open to the Government is to take recourse to Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation. The sanction of the Governor is to be obtained before taking any action against the employee who has been superannuated and against whom no disciplinary proceeding is pending. In the instant case till the superannuation of the petitioner on 31.1.1999, no disciplinary inquiry was pending against the petitioner. The respondents have awarded adverse entry and directed recovery from the petitioner without obtaining any sanction from the Governor  and without conducting any disciplinary proceeding in utter disregard to Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondents cannot be maintained and the petitioner is entitled for his post retiral benefits.

In the result this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 6.2.2001 and 17.3.2001, Annexures-9 and 10 respectively to the writ petition are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the entire post retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of three moths from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent no.1. The petitioner shall also be entitled to 9% simple interest per annum on his delayed due post retiral benefits from the due date till the date of full and final payment is made by the respondents. Parties shall bear their own costs.

15.3.2007

V.Sri/-

W.P. No.41171 of 2001


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.