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


Ashok Sharma Vyas v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 20291 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7351 (23 April 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'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") disposing of the Claim Petition No. 366 of 1995 filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to decide the period of absence of the petitioner and thereafter finalise post retiral and other service benefits by a reasoned order within a period of three months and also against the order dated 17.1.2007 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the review application of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired in 1996 but has not been paid his retiral benefits and even provisional pension has not been paid till date and the Tribunal has erred in law by not issuing a positive direction in this regard.

However, we do not find any force in the submission for the reason that admittedly the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 21.4.1983 to 31.12.1983 and the said period of absence has not been regularised by the competent authority either as leave or by passing any other appropriate order. In the absence of any such order the aforesaid period is creating a break in continuity of service and unless  a decision is taken by the competent authority in respect to the said period, the matter of retiral benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner cannot be finalised. Therefore, in our view the Tribunal has passed an appropriate order in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case warranting no interference. On inquiry the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the order of the Tribunal has not been communicated to the respondents for compliance till date. It is for this reason that direction of the Tribunal could not have been complied by the respondents till date. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.




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.