Allahabad High Court
Januki Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 March, 2019
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2450 of 2019
Petitioner :- Januki Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Bahadur Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to direct the respondents for payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner, which has been illegally with-held by the respondent no.3.
It is contended in the writ petition that although the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2016 but respondents are not making the payment of GPF and other retiral dues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a letter dated 8.10.2018 written by the District Inspector of Schools, Badaun to the officiating Principal of the institution in question. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner following order was passed on 15.2.2019 :-
"It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has already retired on 30.6.2019, certain post retiral dues are still not paid to the petitioner.
The matter is very serious. The person has already retired after attaining the age of superannuation more that two and half years back but till date he is running from pillor to post. The petitioner has also relied upon a communication dated 8.10.2018 sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Badaun to the officiating Principal of the College in question. A copy of which was also marked to the petitioner.
In the circumstances, learned Standing Counsel is granted two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 7th March, 2019."
On the basis of the same instructions were received by the learned Standing Counsel, the same was placed before this Court and the same is taken on record. From perusal of the same it appears that letter dated 2.1.2019 was written by the District Inspector of Schools, Badaun to the petitioner stating therein that in the papers, pertaining to the grant of GPF sent by the officiating Principal of the institution in question, was not signed by the petitioner and as such papers were sent back to the petitioner to put up signature on the same. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 11.1.2019 stating therein that he is not interested in putting his signature. From perusal of the same it is clear that the writ petition was sworn by the petitioner on 20.1.2019, which is clear from the perusal of the page 48 of the paper book. From perusal of the same it is clear that the facts regarding the letter dated 2.1.2019 as written by the District Inspector of Schools, Badaun as well as reply submitted by the petitioner on 11.1.2019 has been deliberately and wilfully concealed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an amendment application was filed by him on 26.2.2019. The said amendment application was sworn by the sole petitioner on 24.2.2019 even in the said amendment application, the aforesaid facts were not disclosed by the petitioner.
In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for not disclosing the aforesaid fact while filing the writ petition as well as amendment application.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, two weeks time is granted to file supplementary affidavit.
List on 25.3.2019 in the additional cause list.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019
Pramod Tripathi
