Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SUKH MAURYA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Sukh Maurya v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 3904 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 1083 (15 April 2005)

 

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. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3904 of 2003

Ram Sukh Maurya         Vs.        State of U.P. and Others

........

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction claiming pensionery benefits w.e.f. 31.12.2000 along with 14% interest and also for direction to release the balance amount of gratuity, G.P.F. etc. along with interest.

The petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in the Irrigation Department some time in the year 1962. There is no dispute about the date of birth of the petitioner, which is recorded as 4.12.1940. There arose some dispute with regard to age of retirement being 58 years or 60 years. The petitioner and several others filed Writ Petition No.15772 of 1993 claiming that the age of retirement was 60 years and not 58 years and accordingly he should be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years and for further direction that the payment of pensionery benefits and gratuity etc. should be computed treating his retirement age to be 60 years. This Court passed an interim order dated 30.4.1993 permitting the petitioner to continue till the age of 60 years. Pursuant to the order the petitioner was allowed to continue till 31.12.2000. Thereafter he has been retired. The respondents paid 90% of gratuity and G.P.F. amount but have not paid the pension, which is apparently for the reason that the age of retirement has not been determined. Aggrieved by inaction of the respondent the present petition was filed in January 2003 for claiming pensionery benefit with interest and also the balance of the gratuity and G.P.F.

During the pendency of this petition Writ Petition No.15772 of 1993 was disposed of by order dated 22.10.2003 with the direction that the petitioner may make a representation with regard to the relief no.2 as claimed in the said writ petition which shall be decided within a month. The order 22.10.2003 is quoted herein under:

"By means of the present writ petition which has been filed by 11 persons for seeking the following relief's:-

i)a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from retiring the petitioners at the age of  58 years.

ii)A writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for computing their services(including their services before their regularisation and confirmation) towards payment of pension, gratuity etc.

iii)Any other writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv)Award the cost of this petition to the petitioners.

So far as the first relief is concerned Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted tht the said relief has become infructuous as most of the petitioners have retired during the pendency of the writ petition. They had continued to work till they attained the age of 60 years under the interim order passed by this Court on  30.4.1993.

In respect of the remaining reliefs the Court feel it appropriate and accordingly directs the petitioners to make a representation before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Works Circle, Obra, Sonebhadra respondent no.2 within a month from today which shall be decided by the said authority by a reasoned order within one month thereafter.

It is made clear that the court has not adjudicated upon the claim on merits.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of."

It has been stated by the petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.10.2003 he has already made a representation but the same has not been decided by the respondent and he has still not been paid any pension.

Since the dispute is only with regard to the age of superannuation be it at the age of 58 years or 60 years but from perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that there is no denial or dispute that the petitioner would not be entitled to pension on account of superannuating at the age of 58 years and therefore, non payment of the pension treating the age of superannuation at 58 years cannot be justified and the respondents have to pay the pension, it is therefore, directed that the tentative pension of the petitioner shall be determined within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order treating his age of retirement as 58 years and arrears of pension at the said rate would be paid within the same time and in the mean time the direction pursuant to the direction of this Court issued on 22.10.2003 in the earlier writ petition shall be taken within four months and in case if it is found that the age of superannuation is 60 years the pension tentatively determined would be modified. However, if it is found otherwise that the age of superannuation is 58 years the tentative pension determined would be confirmed. The balance of the gratuity and the fund shall also be paid to the petitioner within two months of the decision taken as directed above. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest on the arrears of pension from the date it became due till the date of actual payment @ 10% simple interest

With the above observations, the petition is finally disposed off.

Dt.15.4.2005

Hsc/


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.