Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHAUDHARY SHANKAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. FINANCE DEPTT. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chaudhary Shankar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Finance Deptt. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 15109 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 10948 (5 July 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.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15109 of  2002

Chaudhary Shankar Singh vs. State of U.P. And others.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

(Delivered by R.K.Agrawal, J.)

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Chaudhary Shankar Singh, seeks the following reliefs:

"(a)        Writ order or direction to the respondent No.1 to allow the benefit of the provisions of Civil Service Regulation Article 474A(b), which provides the benefit of 30 years as qualifying service for full pension notionally for 27 � years of service to claim full pension at 55 years retirement age besides the petitioner may be allowed the consequential benefits as well which is based on law.(Annexure-No.12 to the writ petition).

b)        Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to pay 50% of minimum of the revised pay scale for the post of A.D.M.(J) last held by the petitioner, which is Rs.10000 x 30/60 = Rs.5000/- per month from 1-1-1996, as per G.O. Dated 13.-4-2000 based on recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, as adopted by the U.P. State Government.

(c) Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents No.1 and 3 to pay to the petitioner an interest @ 18% per annum amounting to Rs.64,000/- approximately, as per law laid down by the Apex Court in V.L.Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other reported in U.P. & B.R. 2000(1593) on delayed payment of Benefits under Rule 11 on the following amounts as detailed in para-10 of the writ petition.

(d) Writ order or direction to respondent No.3 to refix the pension of the petitioner keeping in view the principles laid down in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India referred to in para 7(ii) of the writ petition.

(e) Order to grant any other and further relief on the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of filing this writ petition."

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner was superannuated on attaining the age of 55 years on 31st October, 1963, while working on the post of Additional District Magistrate(Judicial). He had put in a qualifying service of 27 � years. Even though he opted for the retirement benefits under U.P. Retirement Benfit Rules, 1961, yet he was wrongly classified under the U.P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 and was paid pension accordingly under the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961.  On a representation being made, the pension of the petitioner was re-fixed on 30th June, 1987. The petitioner was not satisfied with the fixation of his pension and made several representations. When the authorities did not care to decide the representation of the petitioner, he was left with no other option but to approach this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7373 of 2000 in which this Court, vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2000 directed the authorities concerned to decide the representations made by the petitioner by a speaking order.  Representation has since been decided. The pension has been revised and the revised pension along with the arrears has been paid to the petitioner.  The petitioner still not being satisfied with the revision of his pension in view of the provisions of the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, according to which he is entitled for being paid at least 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale of the post he was holding at the time of retirement, as on 1st January, 1996 as pension,  for which he made another representation and the authorities have re-fixed the pension at Rs.4167/-. The submission is that he is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.5000/- as pension in terms of the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000.

We have heard Sri O.P. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, who represents respondent no.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is not in accordance with the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000 inasmuch as  under the said Government Order the petitioner is entitled for pension of Rs.5000/- being 50% of minimum of the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200, which is the revised pay scale of the post from which the petitioner had retired. He further submitted that he is entitled for interest at the prevailing market rate on the amount of arrears which was paid to him in the month of September, 2000 and also on the amount of difference payable pursuant to the Government Order dated 13.4.2000.

Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3, however, submitted that the respondent no.3, vide order dated 28th November, 2001, had decided the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 11th February, 2000 passed by this Court and the amount of pension as determined is being paid to the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4, however, submitted that the pension has been rightly calculated and re-fixed at Rs.4167/- vide order dated 22nd June, 2001 and it needs no revision.

Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000 specifically provides for payment of at least 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale as on 1st January, 1996 to the pensioners.  There is no dispute regarding revised pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 in respect of the post from which the petitioner had retired. Thus, he was entitled for Rs.5000/- as pension payable from 1st January, 1996. The fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is, therefore, wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated 13th April, 2000.  

So far as the claim of interest is concerned, we find that the Apex Court in the cases of Dr.Uma Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others , 1999 SCC(L&S) 742 and Vijay L.Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. And others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 has held that the State is liable to pay simple interest on the delayed  payment of retiral benefits.  As admittedly the arrears of revised pension were paid in September, 2000, and the pension in the revised pay scale, pursuant to the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000, has wrongly been fixed, the petitioner is entitled for interest also. We, therefore, direct the respondent nos. 1 and 4 to pay interest at the rate 12% per annum on the amount of arrears paid in September, 2000 from the date when it became due till the date of actual payment and further to fix the petitioner's pension at Rs.5000/- plus allowances from 1.1.1996 onwards.  The petitioner shall also be paid interest on the arrears of the difference amount so calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from the date it became due till the date of its actual payment. The difference amount along with interest shall be paid to the petitioner within one  month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent nos. 1 and 4.

As the petitioner is 99 years old, it goes without saying that respondent nos. 1 and 4 shall accord top priority to this matter and work out the amount and pay the same  to the petitioner within the stipulated period so that the petitioner may feel satisfied by enjoying the fruits of his career during his life time.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

5.7.2006

mt


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.