Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM AWADH SINGH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Awadh Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 2093 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 7667 (25 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                               Court No.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2093 of 2001

Ram Awadh Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

The petitioner joined service as a Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary on 13.11.1962. He was promoted on the post of Platoon Commander/Sub Inspector on 20.3.2003. During his service period, on 3.5.1996 an F.I.R. under sections 409/511 I.P.C. was registered against him for having withheld certain amount collected by him in the years 1994-1995. The said amount Rs.8000/- and  odd  was admittedly being deposited prior to the filing of the F.I.R. The petitioner was neither suspended nor any departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner was thereafter retired from service on 29.2.2000. After his retirement, he was not paid his retiral dues, even though the petitioner having completed all formalities in this regard. Hence, he has filed this writ petition with the prayer for payment of the said dues.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier 90% of G.P.F. amount had been paid and 60% of pension is being paid to the petitioner, but no gratuity or insurance amount has been paid to him. Besides this, now the balance amount of G.P.F. and Pension  have also been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition. The only dispute which now remains is with regard to the payment of his current full pension and the  gratuity amount.

In the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that after his retirement, in terms of the Government Order dated 2.12.2000, the petitioner has been given the benefit of time bound promotional pay scale but because of  adverse entry  having been awarded to him in 1996, he has not been given super selection grade. In the counter affidavit there is no mention of any enquiry or departmental proceeding having been ever initiated against the petitioner. The only reason given for not making the payment of balance retiral dues is the pendency of a criminal case against him and an adverse entry recorded in his Annual Confidential Report. The same has been done on the basis of a Government Order (which has not been filed by the respondents alongwith the counter affidavit) nor a copy of the same has been placed before me during arguments.

It is not understood as to why the balance payment of retrial dues have been withheld merely because pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, even though  there are no departmental enquiry  proceedings pending against him. In the present case, F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioner for withholding certain amount collected by him, but the said amount had already been deposited even prior to the filing of the F.I.R. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view  of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Pratap Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P.  1991 Crl. L.J.1816, no charge of breach of trust can be established against the petitioner. Even otherwise, considering the fact that the respondents have themselves given the benefit of time bound promotional pay scale to the petitioner and also the fact that there is no departmental enquiry pending against him, withholding retiral dues of the petitioner does not appear to be justified, merely because of pendency of a criminal case. The same may be done only if there was any provision under any Government Order or any other provision of law. A blanket order, withholding pension and retiral dues of retired employee because of  pending of criminal case against him, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

In such facts, in my view, this writ petition  deserves to be allowed. It is thus directed that the respondents shall pay the entire retiral dues alongwith arrears, within three months from today  and continue to pay full monthly pension, to which he may be found entitled to, regularly month by month. It is further directed that in case if the arrears are not paid within the stipulated time, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date such payment became due, till the date of actual payment. However, in case if the amount is paid within the stipulated period, the respondents shall not be required to pay interest.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.

Dt/-25.4.2007

Ru

             


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.