Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. RAMESH SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Ramesh Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 68021 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4879 (26 October 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. 68021 of 2005

Dr. Ramesh Sharma .....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & others .....Respondents

*****

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide order dated 22.7.2005, while sanctioning the gratuity to the petitioner, the department has deducted a sum of Rs. 82, 375/- without any reason and without any notice illegally, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for a direction from this Court to direct the department to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 82,375/-, which has wrongly been deducted by the respondents from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner.

We have heard Sri S.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.7.2005, contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, it appears that a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was payable to the petitioner towards gratuity out of which a sum of Rs. 82,375/- has been withheld on the instructions of the department due to some wrong payment of salary to him.  The Assistant Accounts Officer of the Office of the Director, Directorate of Pension, U.P. Lucknow has sent a letter to the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Ballia asking him to furnish a detailed chart in respect of payment of salary paid to the petitioner. The said letter of the Assistant Account Officer also shows that on the basis of written consent given by the petitioner a sum of Rs. 82,375/- has been withheld and rest of the amount of gratuity has been sanctioned.

We are of the view that no final order of deduction of gratuity has been passed by the authorities concerned till date and the present writ petition is pre mature at this stage. However, we hope and trust that since the petitioner has already retired from service and is entitled for earlier settlement of his post retiral benefits, the respondents shall finalize the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished before the authority concerned who shall pass final order in this regard. In the event the respondents found that the aforesaid amount is liable to be deducted and not payable to the petitioner, a speaking order shall be passed by the competent authority and shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter.  If the amount of Rs. 82,375/- is found payable the same shall be paid within four weeks thereafter.

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

Dated: 26.10.2005

SKM


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.