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


Gopal Jee Yadav v. Deputy Chief Account Officer, Zonal Accounts & Anr. - WRIT - A No. 29938 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 10173 (24 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).



By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to give all consequential pensionary benefit to the petitioner at the rate of new pay scale of Rs.11000/- and further to direct to give encashment of 226 days at the rate of the new pay scale and other amount which is due to the petitioner.


The case of the petitioner is that he retired from service on 30.6.1998 as a cable joinder. The petitioner was paid provisional pension for six months Rs.2041/- and 90% provisional service gratuity amounting to Rs. 104856/-has been paid to the petitioner. Rest of the amount for which the petitioner is entitled after his retirement has not been paid. It has been submitted that the respondents have fixed the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs.3700/- but this ought to have been fixed at Rs. 6500/-11000/- from 1.4.1998. The petitioner has received the encashment of 226 days on the basic pay scale which was being paid to the petitioner but he has not been paid on the basis of the pay scale i.e. 11000/- and the rest of the amount, as such the petitioner has approached this Court.

Sri Nripendra Mishra who appears for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has been paid the amount for which he was entitled. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that 90% of the gratuity amount and leave encashment of 226 days have already been paid to the petitioner. Further it has been said in the said paragraph that some amount which has not been sanctioned has been sent for requisition of fund for the purpose of payment to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without entering into any controversy regarding the pay scale which has been claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition and on that basis the petitioner claims further amount, it will be appropriate that if the petitioner submits a detailed representation annexing a copy of the writ petition as well as the copy of the order of this Court before respondent no.1 within a month, respondent no.1 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner on the basis of the representation submitted and will pass an appropriate detailed and reasoned order according to law preferably within three months from the date of filing the representation before respondent no.1.  If possible the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity of hearing  

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.



W.P. No. No. 29938 of 2003


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.