Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ramjeet Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 34351 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 556 (25 February 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).


                                                                                                        Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  34351 of  2004

Ramjeet Yadav                     vs.               State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri R.K.Singh Kaosik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents No. 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The petitioner retired from the service of the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad Shahganj on 30.6.2003. On the respondents not paying to the petitioner his retiral dues, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for issuing a mandamus  directing the respondents to pay to him his pension and other retiral benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, dearness allowance etc.

The facts as stated above that the petitioner has retired from the service of Nagar Palika Parishad Shahganj on his attaining the age of supernnauation have not been disputed by the contesting respondent in the counter affidavit. The entitlement of the petitioner for payment of pension is admitted to the respondents and the only ground taken in the counter affidavit for non payment of such dues is because of back of funds with the Nagar Palika Parishad. It has been contended by Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the Nagar Palika Parishad has written to the State Government for sanction of funds and it is only on receipt of such funds, the payment can be made to the petitioner and other retired employees.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that the liability for payment of the retiral dues and pension is admitted, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

It is well settled that post retiral benefits are not given to a retired employee by way of grace or bounty, at the discretion of employer. It is the right which the retired employee has earned by serving the organization during the prime years of his life, so that he can live with dignity after his retirement and is not left at the mercy of others. It is an obligation which the employer has to fulfill and is required to do so under law. It is a statutory right of an employee which is to be paid to him immediately on his retirement. Denial of payment of retiral dues immediately would amount to infringement of rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  

The employer cannot be permitted to take the plea of paucity of funds for non-payment of retiral dues to which a retired employee is entitled to be paid under law. In a case where the Single Judge, in similar circumstances, directed payment of retiral dues alongwith 12% interest and Rs. 10,000/- costs, the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1025 of 2004, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikohabad, district Firozabad Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Mathur & others decided on 6.12.2004 modified the order only to the extent that the interest be paid at the rate of 9% instead of 12% per annum.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for and, accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. It is thus directed that the respondent No. 4 shall pay the entire retiral dues of the petitioner alongwith arrears of pension etc. with 9% interest per annum, within a period of four months from today.

No order as to costs.  




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.