Allahabad High Court
Raghuvir Singh Pno.No. 832120176 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10032
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 626 of 2024
Petitioner :- Raghuvir Singh Pno.No. 832120176
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Charitra Pandey,Shashank Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
On 30.01.2024, this Court had passed the following order:-
"1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Finance Controller, Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarters, Lucknow by which the order has been issued to respondent no. 3 to modify/revise the pay scale of petitioner since 20.09.2009 & 13.04.2013.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner after attaining, the age of superannuation has retired from the post of Sub-Inspector on 31.07.2023. After the retirement till date, no pensionary benefits have been given to the petitioner and after about five months of the retirement of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 has been passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the respondent no. 3 to modify/revise the pay scale of the petitioner since 20.09.2009 and 13.04.2013 as it was wrongly given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the government order dated 16.01.2007, wherein it has been provided that pension fixation authority shall inquire into emoluments of only last 10 months prior to the retirement and for that examine the records of only two years prior thereto i.e. only the record of 34 months would be examined for the purpose of grant of pension as has been provided in the aforesaid government order dated 13.12.1977 whereas in the present case, the impugned order has been passed for the irregularity alleged to be made 10 years ago, whereas as per the Government order, only the records of 34 months would be examined. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 17.04.2014 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal versus Pramukh Sachiv Irrigation Department and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2008, on the same issue placing reliance on the same government order as mentioned above.
3. Learned State Counsel prays for and is granted two days' time to seek instructions.
4. List this case on 02.02.2024, as fresh."
In compliance of the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by this Court, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received has submitted that in the G.O. dated 16.01.2007 which has been relied by the petitioner, there is a reference of G.O. dated 31.12.1977 wherein the authority which has been mentioned is Pension Sanctioning/Allowing Authority and in the case of the petitioner, the Pension Sanctioning/Allowing Authority is Directorate, Pension whereas the order has been by Sahayak Lekhadhikari, Mukhyalay on behalf of Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarters.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation has retired from service on 31.07.2023 and thereafter neither any pension nor other pensionary benefits have been paid to the petitioner till date for which the petitioner has made a representation dated 07.11.2023 to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and the same has been placed before this Court during course of the argument which is taken on record and prays that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 (Finance Controller, Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarters, Lucknow and Senior Superintendent of Police, District Moradabad respectively) for payment of pension and post retiral dues and respondent nos. 2 & 3 may be directed to take a decision on the same within a stipulated time frame, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and liberty may be given to approach the Court for seeking appropriate relief at the later stage, if so advised.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation alongwith copy of the representation dated 07.11.2023 to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 annexing the documents in support of his claim within a period of one week from today and if any such representation is made, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.
Petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court for seeking appropriate relief at the later stage, if so advised.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024
Nitesh
