WPSS/1924/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3112 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPSS No.1924 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 20.06.2023. The contention of petitioner is that the petitioner was, initially, appointed as a Daily Wager (Junior Clerk) with the respondent-Deparment, on 20.01.1989, but subsequently her services were terminated vide order dated 19.01.1993, on the ground that necessary approval and other administrative formalities were not completed.

4. Consequently, petitioner has challenged order of her termination by filing WPSS No. 2722 of 1992 (2722 of 1993), which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2017 and order of termination of petitioner was quashed and set aside and petitioner was deemed to be appointed on regular basis from initial date of her appointment i.e., 20.12.1989.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner continued as Junior Clerk with the respondent. On strength of the interim order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, she continued her service till her superannuation, by which the writ petition was allowed. Now the petitioner is before this Court for seeking her pension and other retiral dues, which according to the petitioner has not been paid. The petitioner retired from her services on superannuation, on 30.06.2023, but till date nothing has been given to her towards her retiral dues/pension.

6. Learned counsel for the State, vehemently, argued that the order and judgment dated 12.04.2017 is challenged in SPA 889 of 2017, which is still pending disposal and till the appeal is not decided the respondent-State is unable to make payment of the privates dues of the petitioner.

7. Aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the State was refuted by learned counsel for petitioner saying that the special appeal filed by the State is a delayed one and till date even the delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, therefore, in substance there is no appeal pending against the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2017 and the State should pay retiral dues of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted six weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

9. Further two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

10. List this case on 20.12.2023.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.10.2023 SK