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


Dharam Deo Arya v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Education Dpett. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 15870 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 11696 (18 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).



By means of this writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of arrears of legitimate dues i.e. (before March 1971 Rs.32466.80 along with interest Rs.40986.15, March 1971 to July 1979 Rs. 51030.40 with interest Rs.45926.40 and July 1979 till 12.10.1986 Rs.190717.20 with interest thereon Rs.6531880 total amount Rs.2,94,214.40 and interest thereon Rs.1,52,231.05 as admissible from time to time with 12% interest worked out thereon till date of payment.

The petitioner who was working as a Principal in the institution known as Arya Vidya Higher Secondary School, Arya Nagar, Leduka, district-Jaunpur retired from service on 30.6.1988. It has been stated that during the working of the petitioner the salary for certain period has also not been paid to the petitioner.

Immediately after retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities for payment of retiremental benefits. Relating to the salary of the petitioner the Committee of Management on 16.10.1986 sent a letter to the District Inspector of Schools with regard to non-payment of certain dues. The petitioner sent several representations but in spite of the representations to the relevant authorities i.e. The Secretary, Education Department, Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools, the respondents have not paid any heed and the retiremental benefits for which the petitioner was entitled, has not been paid. By a resolution of the Committee of Management of the institution-dated 10.2.2002 a resolution to this effect has been passed requesting the authorities to make the payment of retiremental benefits to the petitioner. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid fact, the retiremental benefit for which the petitioner was entitled has not been paid.

The petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court and time for counter affidavit was granted to the Standing Counsel but no counter affidavit has been filed. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5 i.e. Committee of Management has been filed. It has been stated that the payment of pensionary and other retiremental benefits to the petitioner were caused on account of controlling appointment in the institution from time to time and thereafter Management of the institution since 1987 to 2000 was under the control of unauthorized and unwarranted management which was biased against the petitioner and no efforts have been made to finalize the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner as per the record available in the office.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of.

From the record as the contention raised in the writ petition has not been rebutted, therefore, a presumption will be that the petitioner who was a principal of the institution retired from service on 30.6.1986 and various payments including salary for certain periods have not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has been running from pillar to post approaching the authorities for payment of his retiremental benefits. The Committee of management has also passed a resolution recommending the case of the petitioner for payment of pension and other retiremental benefits but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the respondents have not taken care that a person who has served in a particular school for a period of 25-30 years and after his retirement, he has been deprived of the benefits for which he has a fundamental right. Now it is well settled that retiremental benefit is not booty. It is a fundamental right of an employee who retires from service after 25-30 years. The action of the respondents cannot be appreciated. It was the duty of the respondents to pay the retiremental benefits including pension of the petitioner immediately after the retirement. But the same has not been done in spite of the repeated requested and representations by the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to see that the pensionary and retiremental benefits which are due to the petitioner be paid immediately preferably within a period of three months. It is provided that the petitioner will submit a certified copy of this order with a representation before respondent no.3 within a period of three weeks, and the respondent no.3 will consider the same and will take necessary steps for payment of pension. It is also made clear that the petitioner will be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. No order as to costs.



W.P. 15870 of 2002


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.