Allahabad High Court
Israr Ahmad vs State Of ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25898 of 2020
Petitioner :- Israr Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Urban Devlp. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bahar Ali,Om Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4.
The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a direction to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to make payment of pension, gratuity and the arrears etc. along with 10% interest per annum, till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged on 19.02.1991 as a daily wager. The services of the petitioner were regularized after one year. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 28.02.2019 but till date no post retiral dues have been paid to him. He is facing financial hardships and it is very difficult for him to meet both the ends.
Earlier also, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.18286 (S/S) of 2019, which was disposed off by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 04.07.2019 with a direction to the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2019 by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks.
The Executive Officer, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 07.07.2019, passed an order dated 19.10.2019 stating therein that the payment of post retiral dues would only be made after getting approval of respondent no. 2 i.e. Up. Nideshak, Sthaniya Nidhi Lekha Pariksha Vibhagh, 22 Station Road, Lucknow. Since no action was taken by the respondent no.2, the petitioner has again approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received by him, which have been provided to this Court and placed on record, has submitted that vide letter dated 28.02.2020, respondent no. 2 i.e. Up Nideshak, Sthaniya Nidhi Lekha Pariksha, Lucknow raised few objections and directed the Chairman/Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur to remove those objections. The main objection raised by the respondent no. 2 pertains to the date of birth of the petitioner so at the time of appointment, the petitioner was over age, so have relaxation in age should be obtained from the competent authority. Thereafter, inter-departmental communications between the opposite parties kept going on but no payment was made.
After the judgment and order of this Court dated 04.07.2019, respondent no.3 had forwarded a letter dated 06.12.2019 to the State Government for necessary directions. In response thereto, the State Government informed Nagar Palika Parishad vide its letter dated 13.03.2020 that as per section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Act, 1916, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Executive Officer or Chairman, thus, the decision can be taken by the Nagar Palika Parishad itself. Respondent no. 3 again forwarded letter dated 29.07.2020 to the State Government whereafter an order has been passed by the State Government on 06.10.2020 saying that in the Government Order dated 03.02.1992 relating to the date of regularization of class-IV employees, neither any age limit was provided nor there was any restriction of maximum age. The regularization of the petitioner should take place with immediate effect and that was no requirement of obtaining approval for relaxation in age from the competent authority and directed that the petitioner shall be paid the post retiral dues by counting his service from the date of his regularization i.e. 03.02.1992.
It appears that the opposite parties were unnecessarily delaying the matter of payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. If the contention of the learned State Counsel is accepted that the delay is due to the letter dated 30.08.2020 sent by the respondent no.2 raising objection pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner even then, there is no reason shown in the instructions received by the learned State Counsel for delaying payment since 28.02.2019 to 25.11.2020 i.e. the date of retirement and the objection raised by the respondent no.2 respectively.
The objection raised by the respondent no.2 was without application of mind as the Government Order dated 03.02.1992 was in existence and it is necessary that authority must know the relevant government orders, rules, provisions etc before raising any objection and that too when the matter is relating to the pensionary benefit to a retired employee, who is facing hardships since the year 2019.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent no. 2 i.e. U.P. Nideshak, Sthaniya Nidhi Lekha Pariksha Vibhagh, Station Road, Lucknow is directed to pass necessary orders and to ensure the payment of all post retiral dues to the petitioner with interest of 6 % per annum calculated from the date of retirement of the petitioner till actual payment is made and payment of pension regularly every month within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
With the observations made and directions given hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021
Subodh/-
