High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Adil Singh Chauhan v. Cheif Engg. U.P.S.E.B. & Ohters - WRIT - A No. 16618 of 1995  RD-AH 71 (12 February 2004)
Court No. 23
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16618 of 1995
Aidal Singh Chauhan Vs. Chief Engineer U.P.S.E.B. and others.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the due salary of the petitioner, pension, GPF and Gratuity etc.
I have heard Sri P.R. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mayank Saxena, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.3 and Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for respondents nos. l and 2.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
The petitioner was an employee of respondent no.2. He was appointed as attendant in the year 1956. After promotion from time to time he ultimately worked as Junior Engineer till 31.7.1993 where he has retired from his services on 31.7.1993. The petitioner at the time of his retirement was not paid arrears of salary of 8 months. The respondents also did not pay the pension, GPF and Gratuity to the petitioner, which had already become due in spite of several representation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition. An interim order was passed on 22.6.1995 and respondent no.2 was directed either to pay the petitioner his post retrial benefits within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order or to show cause by the next date fixed. This court vide order dated 18.5.1999 further directed respondents to make arrangement for taking over the charge from the petitioner and thereafter to decide by passing a fresh order as to how much amount is due against the petitioner and whether the same is adjustable towards the gratuity or any other account and respondents were required to appraise this Court about the aforesaid amount due against the petitioner after adjustment by the next date of listing of the case. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not submitted any statement as required in compliance of the order-dated 18.5.1999 of this court.
It has been stated in para 12 of the writ partition that the respondents did not take charge from the petitioner on his retirement which fact has not been denied by the respondents 1and 2 in para 11 of the writ petition.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is disposed of finally at this stage.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the entire dues of the petitioner out standing against them in respect with the payment of salary of 8 months prior to his retirement and the entire post retrial benefits which have fallen due along with interest at the Bank Rate till date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondents 1 and 2. However, the respondents 1 and 2 may adjust the amount due against the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of explanation, which are claimed against miscellaneous out standing advance payments made which as per their own case in supplementary counter affidavit dated 29.8.1997, Annexure S.C.A.1 to the affidavit, letter dated 2.6.1997of the office of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, U.P. State Electricity Board, Khurja (Bulandshar) is not more than 2,85,900/-.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.