Yagya Narayan Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20261 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Yagya Narayan Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 31 May, 2024

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41705
 
Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4430 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Yagya Narayan Chaturvedi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Nath,Yogendra Nath Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to consider case of petitioner for granting of one annual increment on his being retired on 30.06.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was retired on 30.06.2021 and he has been denied one year satisfactory increment, which is due on 1st of July after the retirement of petitioner.

5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of P.P. Pandey versus State of U.P. and others, writ petition No. 18375 (S/S) of 2020 which has been followed by another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and others versus Union of India and other, Writ A No. 13299 of 2020 which has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others versus C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 296.

6. Learned State Counsel also does not dispute the fact that petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

7. Considering the said factors, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to grant benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of P.P. Pandey (supra) with regard to grant of one annual increment to which he had become entitled on Ist July of respective year of retirement i.e. on 30.06.2021.

8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

Order Date :- 31.5.2024

J. K. Dinkar