Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HIRA LAL UPADHYAYA versus STATE OF UP THRU' SECY. TRANSPORT AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hira Lal Upadhyaya v. State Of Up Thru' Secy. Transport And Others - WRIT - A No. 63522 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 1094 (17 January 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari ,J

    Heard counsel for the parties and perused the  record.

    The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2003.  He is not being paid his pension despite the fact that the petitioner has moved several representations. The respondents were granted several opportunities but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.  Sri G.P. Gupta, counsel for the respondents does not dispute the claim of the petitioner and submits that the pension has not been released thus for due to paucity of fund.   Since the controversy involved in the instant case relates to pensionary benefit, the petition is being decided with the consent of counsel for the parties.

     The controversy of the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the controversy involved in Civil Misc. Writ No.21297 of 2004 Rasheed Ali  Vs.State of U.P. and others  decided on 20.9.2005.    

     In view of ratio decided in Rasheed Ali''s case (supra) this writ petition is allowed with the direction that the retiral dues of the petitioner from the due date till the date of payment shall be paid by the respondent nos.2 and 3 with 10% compound interest within a period of one month from today otherwise the State Government  will act in accordance with law against the erring officials of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and will also recover the legitimate amount due to the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within one month thereafter and pay the same to the petitioner forthwith within a week of recovery. Cost is assessed as Rs.5000/- on respondent nos. 2 and 3 to be paid to the petitioner within a month for not taking action for payment of legitimate dues of the petitioner and in making the poor retired employee run from pillar to post for his legitimate claim without any just cause. The respondent nos.2 and 3 will also ensure payment of  pension to the petitioner, month by month, as and when it falls due.

17.1.2006

kkb


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.