Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. BRIJ BHUSHAN PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Brij Bhushan Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 55677 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17822 (17 October 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 Amitava Lala, J.

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Udai Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- University.

According to the petitioner he has retired on 30th June, 2003 and his pension was sanctioned on 3rd February, 2006 but the pensionery benefits have not yet been paid. In this respect the petitioner has made two representations before the authority concerned, one on 10th May, 2006 and another on 24th August, 2006 which have not yet been considered and are still pending.

When the Court was about to pass an order, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- University that all the papers related to the petitioner's pension matter were provided to the authority concerned before retirement of the petitioner.

Under such circumstances of the instant case, the writ petition is disposed of finally directing the authority concerned to consider and dispose of petitioner's representations dated 10th May, 2006 and 24th August, 2006 (Annexures No. 3 & 4 to the writ petition respectively) upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law thereon within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. For the purpose of effective adjudication a copy of the writ petition and its annexures will also be filed alongwith certified copy of the order, which may be treated to be part and parcel of the representation. In case it is found that any pensionery benefits to which the petitioner was entitled to were wrongly withheld by the authority concerned, in that event he will be entitled for interest on the said sum in accordance with law.

However, no order is passed as to costs.

Dt.: 17.10.2006

Kdo/ (55677/06)


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.