Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMLENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI versus U.P. POWER CORP. LTD. THRU' CHIEF ENGINEER AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamlendra Kumar Maheshwari v. U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Thru' Chief Engineer And Another - WRIT - A No. 68856 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 10076 (23 May 2006)

 

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. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68856 of 2005

Kamlendra Kumar Maheshwari

Versus

U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner was working as Junior Engineer with U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. Petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2004, but he was not extended retiral benefits. No dues certificate was issued to the petitioner on 08.08.2005. Petitioner has been insisting upon for his retiral benefits, and the pension, which was being paid to him, was also sought to be withheld. Petitioner filed writ petition before this Court. This Court, on presentation of writ petition passed following order, which is being quoted below:

"Sri R.D. Khare, Advocatre, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The grievance of petitioner is that he has not been paid pension as yet by the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to pay the aforesaid dues to the petitioner.

Prima facie a case for ad-interim mandamus is made out.

An ad-interim mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay the aforesaid dues to the petitioner with 10 per cent compound interest within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order or to show cause by filing counter affidavit within the aforesaid period. In case the cause/counter affidavit is not filed within the time allowed by this court, respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall be personally present in Court on the date fixed.

Rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

List immediately, thereafter."

Counter affidavit has been filed and the plea which has been sought to be taken is to the effect that there are various amounts due to the petitioner. Details of the said amount are as under:

Months                                        Rupees

Feb. 1982                                   5450.00

April 1982                                     695.20

Aug. 1982                                    1170.00

Feb. 1984                                   68500.00

May, 1984                                   23238.00  

These details also find place in letter dated 14.10.2004, which has been annexed along with the counter affidavit. This is undisputed position that petitioner was posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division for the period starting from 02.12.1980 to 30.06.1984, and thereafter no dues certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer. All these claims are being raised by the respondents against petitioner after he attained the age of superannuation. The copy of the letter which has been annexed along with the counter affidavit clearly mentions that the details in regard to amounts of February, 1982 and April,1982 are not available on the basis of which any enquiry can be conducted. Similar is the position of the amount mentioned in respect of August, 1982 and February, 1984. Qua each and every amount there is no record available. When records are not available with the Department, then it would be too unreasonable to ask the petitioner after 20 years to furnish documentary evidence in this respect. Report of the Executive Engineer dated 14.10.2004 clearly reveals that there is no documentary evidence in respect of the aforementioned amount and merely because some mention has been made, as such liability is being fastened on the petitioner's shoulders.

It is well settled that if some action has to be taken, then that must be taken within reasonable time. In case all these amounts which have been mentioned were due against petitioner, then in that event early steps ought to have been taken, but after the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, then raising all these types of plea without there being any documentary evidence in support of the same, is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of the authority. One who is going to attain the age of superannuation, he should be permitted to attain the age of superannuation in peace and not with all sorts of problems, as have been raised in the present. Here, in the present case, amounts which are sought to be shown as due against petitioner, are From February, 1982 to May, 1984 of May, 1984, and as per report dated 14.10.2004, there is no documentary evidence in respect of the same, as such it would too unreasonable to withhold the retrial benefits and pension amount on the basis of said grounds taken in the counter affidavit. As the grounds of withholding of retrial benefits and pension are unsustainable, writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed the respondents are directed to ensure payment of retrial benefits as well as arrears pension, as already directed by order dated 28.10.2005, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Along with the amount in question, except for Gratuity amount,  10 % compound interest shall also be payable from due date till the date of actual payment.  As far as gratuity amount is concerned, statutory interest shall be payable on delayed payment. Respondents are further directed to ensure pension to the petitioner month by month a and when it falls due.

No order as to costs.

23.05.2006

SRY.


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.