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


D.N. Verma v. Registrar General, Alld. High Court Alld. And Others. - WRIT - A No. 61376 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18949 (9 November 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).




Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Siddharth Singh and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to pass the final order in pursuance of the final inquiry report dated 14.7.2005. Further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the pension, gratuity and commutation of pension along with 12% interest.

The petitioner was working on the post of Section Officer, retired from service on 31.10.2005. There was some disciplinary inquiry pending against the petitioner and the inquiry report has already been submitted on 14.7.2005 and immediately within a period of two months, the petitioner on the basis of the sow cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority has submitted his reply but no final order has yet been passed. Though it is apparent that the inquiry officer has recommended the punishment of only a warning for future to be exceptionally careful in obeying the orders of the Hon'ble Court. The petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid fact, the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent no.2 has not passed any order up till date. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that though the petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2005, even the provisional pension has not been provided to the petitioner in spite of the various reminders sent by the petitioner. It was only in the month of March 2006 that the provisional pension has been granted to the petitioner. The other retiral benefits for which the petitioner is entitled have not yet been paid. It is well settled that an employee who has retired from service is entitled for retiral benefit immediately after the retirement.

We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record. From the punishment proposed it is clear that the inquiry officer has recommended only a warning to the petitioner. Admittedly now the petitioner has retired from service but due to not passing the final order by the disciplinary authority, the retiral benefits are not being paid to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, respondent no.2 is directed to pass appropriate order relating to outcome of disciplinary proceedings and to pass the final order within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before him. It is also provided that the petitioner will be paid all the retiral benefits including pension, gratuity and commutation of pension within a period of three months from the date of passing of the final orders passed by respondent no.2.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.



W.P. No. 61376 of 2006


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.