Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pal Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Deptt. Of ... on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2984 of 2015
Petitioner :- Vijay Pal Singh Chauhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Deptt. Of Agriculture Through Prin. Secy. Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari,Abhishek Srivastava,Devki Nandan Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
(Civil Misc. Application No.31251 of 2021:Application for Recall of the Order dated 1.2.2021)
Cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. The order dated 1.2.2021 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number.
(Petition)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Kumar learned counsel for respondent State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector Group-II in the year 1973. He was promoted on the post of Senior Soil Conservation Inspector Group-B in 2006. He retired from service on 30.9.2011, vide notice dated 30.9.2011 by the respondent No.4, Soil Conservation Officer/Drawing & Disbursing Officer, distt. Shravasti. It was mentioned in the retirement notice that as per Office record, the date of petitioner is 1.10.1951 and after completing 60 years of age, the petitioner was given retirement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not paid pensionary benefits, wherefore, he filed petition being Service Single No.7220 of 2013 before this Court decided by judgment and order dated 3.12.2013 whereby, direction was issued to the O.P. No.2, Agriculture Director, Soil Conservation Department, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. The said order was served on the answering respondents and in pursuance of the order of this Court, the Additional Agriculture Director (Admn.), Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow issued a letter dated 27.1.2014 and direction has been issued to the Soil Conservation Officer, Shravasti that entire payment is to be made by the Soil Conservation Officer, therefore, he directed that the retirral benefit should be provided to the petitioner within three days. The Soil Conservation Officer Shravasti had written letter to the Additional Agricultural Director (Admn.) on 31.1.2014 in which it is mentioned that there is dispute of date of birth of the petitioner and the record of service book of the petitioner is not available. It has further been mentioned that since the service book has not been provided by the petitioner, therefore, his pensionary benefits have not been granted. The letter further indicates that the petitioner was on leave for certain period, therefore, his services could not be counted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.4 is under bounden duty to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner once the petitioner has been retired from service and retirement notice has been given by the answering respondent No.4. He has further submitted that whatever service record is available with the answering respondent No.4, he has to provide pensionary benefits but taking technical plea that service record of the petitioner is not available, withholding pensionary benefit of the petitioner is not justified. He, therefore, further submitted that it is the duty of the answering respondent No.4 to complete entire record for which the petitioner cannot be blamed and once, the petitioner has been retired by the answering respondent No.4, the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits and there is no justification to stop the pensionary benefit of the petitioner for more than 11 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no departmental proceedings are pending, nor any show cause notice has been issued against the petitioner. This fact is mentioned in paragraph-4 of the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. He has further submitted that in absence of any departmental proceedings, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner cannot be stopped.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not submitted service record, therefore, his pensionary benefits could not be released. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner did not handover the charge of the Office along with the service record when he was retired by the respondent No.4.
I have heard arguments of both the parties.
Once the petitioner has been retired by the answering respondent No.4 by giving notice, it was incumbent on him to release the pensionary benefits and in case any service record was not available, it was the duty of the answering respondent No.4 to complete the service record and if it was not made available, then he had to reconstitute the service book and then order could have been passed for grant of pensionary benefits. However, in the present case, no such exercise has been done. Only it has been mentioned that since the record is not available, therefore, the pensionary benefits have not been released. This appears to be violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
There is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no departmental proceeding was ever initiated by the answering respondent No.4 and if no departmental proceeding has been initiated and no show cause notice was issued, then no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner did not handover the charge and the service record that is why, the pensionary benefits are also not released. This argument has no force inasmuch as, in case the petitioner was not handing over the Office and the service record, then in such a situation, it was open for the answering respondent No.4 to lodge FIR against the petitioner but the same has not been done. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents has no force and the same is overruled.
It is admitted on record that the petitioner has been retired from after attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, by giving retirement notice in which date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned by the answering respondent No.4. Thus, I am of the opinion that the records are available with the respondent No.4. If any record is not available, then it is incumbent on the respondent No.4 to do necessary exercise but pensionary benefits cannot be stopped at any cost.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the entire pensionary benefits with simple interest of 6% per annum to the petitioner by doing all exercise within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
