Sitwat Hussain vs State Of U.P.Thru ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2562 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2298 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Sitwat Hussain
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Financial Institutionandtax Andors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

(I.A. No.7 of 2023-Correction)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an application for correction in the order dated 12.1.2023 passed by this Court.

The correction application is allowed and the order dated 12.1.2023 is corrected. After correction, now following order is passed:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 30.07.2019 whereby his claim for grant of increment etc. is rejected. The date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1950 and he was due to retire on 30.6.2010. The petitioner is entitled to get an increment in his pay band which fell due on 1st July and accordingly the pensionary benefits, however the same is rejected by the respondents on the ground that the judgment of the the Madras High Court in the case of P.Ayyamperumal Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, High Court Complex, Chennai and others; relied upon by the petitioner, is under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the judgment in the case of P.P. Pandey (Parmatma Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ Petition No. 18375 (S/S) of 2020, dated 25.1.2021, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition taking into consideration the rules applicable in the State of U.P. and this matter is squarely covered by the said judgment.

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of P.P. Pandey (Supra). He further submits that the issue is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Be that as it may, there is no stay upon the law as settled by the Allahabad High Court in the case of P.P. Pandey (Supra) as on date, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said judgment.

Thus, the impugned order dated 30.07.2019, is hereby set aside. The respondent no. 2-Principal Secretary, Finance, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow, is directed to extend the benefit of the judgment in the case of P.P. Pandey (Supra) and provide an increment in the pay band which fell due on 1st July and accordingly the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with the said judgment and appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondent no.2, within a period of two months from today.

The writ petition is allowed. "

.

[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

Order Date :- 24.1.2023

Sachin