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


Ram Kripal Shukla v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 269 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 5143 (22 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).


Court No.32

Special Appeal No. 269 of 2005

Ram Kripal Shukla .....Appellant


State of U.P. and others .....Respondents


Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 13.9.2004 dismissing appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36573 of 2004.

It appears that the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the post retirement benefit of the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ order, direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary due since August, 2003 till 5.3.2004 against the work and performance of the petitioner and further the arrears of promotional scale of Naib Tehsildar with effect from 1999 till April 2003.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in a suitable nature as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award and cost of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner.

The Hon'ble Single Judge having heard learned counsel for the parties found that the appellant as per rule was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, i.e, on 30.6.2001  but  he fraudulently continued till 5th March, 2004 and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition without granting any relief.

Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of argument confined his submission only in respect of payment of post retiral benefits treating the appellant to have retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.6.2001.

Learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that the appellant was entitled to continue till he attained the age of 58 years in service and, therefore, he ought to have retired on 30.6.2001.  Learned Standing Counsel also could not show us any reason to withhold the post retiral benefits.

In this view of the matter, we modify the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge to the extent that the appellant shall be paid all retiral benefits, which he is entitled to get under the law treating him to have retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.6.2001. The respondents shall take steps for the payment towards post retiral dues to the appellant, if not already paid, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid modification, this special appeal is partly allowed. The writ petition and the special appeal are accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

Dated: 22.3.2007



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.