Allahabad High Court
Shambhunath Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 May, 2016
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23006 of 2016
Petitioner :- Shambhunath Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhya Shanker Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner claims that he was a driver in the office of second respondent-District Magistrate, Maharajganj. He reached his age of superannuation on 31.12.2013.
It is stated that respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 7,98,005/- towards payment of his G.P.F. account as well as leave encashment of 300 days, but other retiral benefits as pension, gratuity, insurance has not been paid to him till date. It is apprehension of the petitioner that his post retiral benefits have been withheld by respondents due to pendency of the special appeal. It is significant to mention here that earlier petitioner's services were terminated on 30-10-1992. He challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 41662 of 1992, wherein initially an interim order was granted. Later on the said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 16.8.2007 quashing the termination order and the respondents were directed to pay all consequential benefits. It is stated that in compliance thereof, his consequential benefits has been paid and he has been reinstated. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have preferred Special Appeal (Defective) No. 717 of 2008. It is averred in the writ petition that no interim order has been passed in the special appeal and it is still pending.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere pendency of the special appeal, would not empower the respondent to withhold the payment of pension, gratuity and insurance to him.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
From the facts mentioned above, it is evident that in the special appeal no interim order has been passed. Simply pendency of the special appeal cannot be treated as a legal impediment in payment of post retiral benefits to an employee. It is well settled that pension is not bounty. It can be withheld only in accordance with law. In the instant case, termination order has already been set aside in the writ petition and in the special appeal no interim order has been granted.
In view of the above, the respondent is directed to consider representation of the petitioner and if any order is passed for payment of the dues, it can be mentioned that it will abide the result of the special appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to furnish security other than cash or bank guarantee that in case special appeal is allowed, he will abide by the legal consequences which may follow.
The petitioner's representation shall be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. The respondents are at liberty to get the special appeal expedited in the meantime.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.5.2016
SNT/
