Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHANWAR PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhanwar Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 22457 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 316 (18 July 2004)

 

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.6

CIVIL MISC. WERIT PETITION NO.22457 OF 2004

Bhanwar Pal Singh   Vs.   State of U.P. and others

              ---------------------------------  

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.  

Heard Sri R.P. Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K.Rai, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector and on account of three adverse entries, was compulsorily retired from the service on 14.5.1990. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13578 of 1990 and, initially an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order of retirement. By another order dated 16.12.1991, this Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to his salary during the pendency of the writ petition. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed on merit by a judgment dated 16.2.2001, even though, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had retired on 30.11.1997 upon reaching the age of superannuation at 58 years. The petitioner, upon the dismissal of the writ petition, filed a Special Appeal No.186 of 2001 which was also dismissed and, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, passed the following order :

" However, it is made clear that the retiral benefits whatever is admissible according to law on the basis of compulsory retirement should be made available to the appellant/petitioner as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order."

Based on the aforesaid direction, the retirement benefits were calculated and certain deductions were made from his retirement benefits namely, from his gratuity and certain amount was also deducted from his pension. Since the entire amount towards retirement benefits was not paid, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.731 of 2003 in which an order dated 13.2.2004 was passed directing the petitioner to make a representation which would be decided  by the authority concerned. This representation, was rejected by an order dated 13.5.2004. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed not only for the quashing  of the order dated 13.5.2004, but for the  payment of the  revised pay scale, arrears from 1990 to 1992 ,etc. The petitioner also prayed that the action of the respondents in deducting the amount paid to him towards the  salary pursuant to the interim order granted by this court from the gratuity and from the pension was illegal and was liable  to be quashed. The petitioner further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents  directing them to refund the amount alongwith the interest.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, confined his relief only with regard to the illegal deductions made by the respondents and has given up the other reliefs.

Admittedly, the petitioner was paid his salary pursuant to the interim order. There is no controversy with regard to the fact that the petitioner had performed his work and attended his duty. Since the petitioner has performed his duty, in that situation, the petitioner is entitled for his salary. The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed and the order of compulsory retirement was affirmed. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal categorically issued a direction to the respondents to calculate the retirement benefits, on the basis of the order of compulsory retirement. The period, which the petitioner had worked, on the basis of the interim order, was not  to be calculated for the purpose of calculating the retirement benefits. The direction of the Court, did not allow the respondents to deduct the salary, which the petitioner had received on the basis of an interim order. In my view, the petitioner was justified  to receive the salary because he had worked and performed his duty during that period. In my view, this period, should be treated as an extension of service and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to retain his salary. The authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner had also referred the matter to the State Government for its opinion. The State Government, by an order dated 4.4.2005 informed the Police Department, that the salary which the petitioner had received, pursuant to the interim order, could not be deducted from his retirement benefits. In view of the categorical stand taken by the State Government, it is no longer open to the Police Department to deduct any amount from the retirement benefits  for which the petitioner was entitled.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in respect of the relief as modified above and a mandamus is issued to the respondents not to deduct any amount from the gratuity or from the pension, in relation to the salary, which the petitioner had received, pursuant to the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.13578 of 1990. The amount so deducted shall be refunded to the petitioner within three months without any payment of interest from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, failing which, interest would be paid at the rate of 12% per annum. It is made clear, that the other reliefs, which the petitioner has claimed, in the writ petition, has not been pressed by the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the State Government, the judgment cited by the standing counsel in the case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Kumar, 1995 ALJ 1603 has no relevance to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Dt.18.7.2005

Ak/ 22457/04


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.