Rajendra Singh Negi vs U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 7597 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 31
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20066 of 2010
 
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Negi
 
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Ajal Krishna,Samir Sharma,V. K. Ojha
 

 
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.

By the impugned order it has been stated  that the petitioner's pension has wrongly been fixed  on account of option given by him on 1.1.1996. Which is the order, by which such an option was asked for and under which provision such an option is required is not clear from various documents filed along with the writ petition  as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits.

Sri A.P.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Relying upon Rule 22-B of the Financial Hand Book  which provides for increment on promotion, he submits that according to the aforesaid Rule and according to the chart of 5th Pay Commission, the petitioner, who was getting salary of Rs. 1600/- upon the implementation of the recommendation, would be entitled   to Rs. 4875/- which was paid to the petitioner rightly and now the petitioner has retired, his pension has been fixed treating his pay to be Rs. 4500/-.

Learned counsel for the respondents may give specific answer as to under which provision such an option has been exercised by the petitioner. He is allowed ten days' time  to file response  to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit.  In the said response, it will also be indicated as to whether Rule 22-B of the Financial Hand Book is applicable in the case of the petitioner or not. 

List this matter on 3rd November, 2014. 

Order Date :- 15.10.2014/SKM