Allahabad High Court
Maya Shanker Srivastav vs Insepector General Of Police And ... on 27 August, 2012
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41522 of 2004
Petitioner :- Maya Shanker Srivastav
Respondent :- Insepector General Of Police And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastav,Vinay Kuamr Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.P. Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was appointed as Registration Clerk on 06.11.1962, yet after his superannuation on 31.05.1999, he is being granted only provisional pension @ 3105/-. His further grievance is that he had completed more than required pensionable service, and is entitled to regular pension @ 50 % of the last drawn pay.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent, wherein it is stated that as the petitioner had not rendered full pensionable service, hence he is not entitled to full pension, as an employee must have completed at least 33 years of eligible service in terms of various government orders issued by the State Governments. It is further stated that the services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 07.04.1971 only. As the service book of the petitioner was not traceable, therefore, the period of services rendered by the petitioner, prior to 07.04.1971 has not been included while computing his pension.
4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed, wherein the petitioner has annexed relevant extracts of the service book, a perusal of which indicates that the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as temporary Registration Clerk, is 06.11.1962 and that the service book also contains service period records of the petitioner prior to 07.04.1971 and that he had been shown as permanent / regular employee w.e.f. 01.08.1979.
5. Considering the factual issues raised in the petition, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending and further delaying the matter as the petitioner has already attained superannuation on 31.05.1999 and therefore, it would be in the fitness of things, if a direction is issued to respondent no. 1 / Inspector General of Registration, U.P. at Allahabad to decide and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in the light of the contents of Annexure 3 to the rejoinder affidavit.
6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of, that in case the petitioner files a representation within one month from today, along with a certified copy of the order before respondent no.1, then he shall endeavour to decide and dispose of the same in the light of Annexure 3 to the rejoinder affidavit and in accordance with law, within a further period of two months, and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is held entitled to higher pension, then the arrears shall be paid along with interest @ 9 %, to the petitioner, along with current enhanced pension. Petitioner shall annex the copy of the petition, copy of counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit (containing Annexure 3), along with the representation.
7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.8.2012
Chandra
