Shivpoojan Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 7 Otherts
2025 Latest Caselaw 101 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shivpoojan Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 7 Otherts on 1 April, 2025

Author: Ajit Kumar

Bench: Ajit Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44563
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 533 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Shivpoojan Yadav And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Otherts
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
 

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have questioned recovery of the commutation amount given to the petitioners, by means of installments from pension.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that since amount paid as commutation has already stood recovered, further recovery from the pension of petitioner is bad even though rules provide for deductions for a period of 15 years.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the controversy is no more res integra in the light of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others v. Union of India and another passed in Writ - A No.- 17819 of 2024 decided on 15th January, 2025 which has also been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others along with bunch matters passed in Writ - A No.- 19031 of 2024 decided on 6th March, 2025. The coordinate bench has upheld the Rules/ Scheme of commutation of pension, which is advance pension and was voluntarily opted by the employees.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above facts, nor could take any plea that above judgments are distinguishable on law or on facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not place any judgment of Supreme Court to hold that judgments relied upon by learned Standing Counsel are not binding judicial precedents.

In view of the above, no indulgence can be granted by this Court in such matter.

Thus petition is dismissed in the light of the law laid down in aforesaid quoted authorities of this Court.

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

Sanjeev