Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 22.5.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4587 (S/S) of 2006 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), which is as under:-
"Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel, while notice on behalf of opposite parties no.2 and 3 has been accepted by Sri M.K. Singh, who pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks thereafter is allowed to the counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' services have been dispensed with by means of order dated 12.5.2006 on the basis of the show cause notice, which was issued to them on 28.4.2006. He further submits that it is a vague notice and it does not contain any reason for cancellation. The submission is that in absence of any specific ground or reason for cancellation, the notice itself was a vague notice and could not have been replied by the petitioners properly. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioners, in which the petitioners have stated that there was no irregularity in the selection at any level and the appointments were made after having prior approval from the State Government. The further submission is that the proper procedure was also followed for making appointments and thereafter some enquiry, which was held behind the back of the petitioners, of which no information was given to them and neither they were permitted to participate in the enquiry. The Government took a decision to cancel the appointments on the basis of the report to the District Magistrate by means of Annexure No.11 dated 12.4.2006. There is a specific direction in the letter dated 12.4.2006 to cancel the appointments. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the opposite party no.3 has acted on the dictates of the opposite party no.1 and has not applied his mind properly to the facts of the case. The impugned order also does not contain any reason for arriving at a conclusion and only conclusions have been indicated in the impugned order. The impugned order on the fact of it appears to be a non-speaking order and as such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
On being specifically asked from the counsel for the Zila Panchayat as to what are the reasons for cancellation of the appointments, he could not inform the Court anything and showed his ignorance in this regard.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It seems that the cancellation has been done in a mechanical manner on the dictates of the State Government and the participation of the petitioners have been only symbolic and in fact the petitioners could not make effective reply on account of the vague notice and the impugned order also suffers from the same irregularity as it contains no reasons and also indicating non-application of mind. The appointments were made after having due approval from the Government in 1999 and now the same is sought to be cancelled in 2006.
Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I stay the operation of the impugned order dated 12.5.2006, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, till further orders of this Court. The petitioners will also be entitled for salary in accordance with law.
List this petition on 8.8.2006, on which date the record shall be produced by the opposite parties."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of aforesaid order, the petitioner continued in service till his retirement on 31.10.2020 and has received all monetary benefits without any interruption.
On the last date i.e. 5.2.2021 this Court has taken cognizance of one letter dated 14.10.2020 preferred by Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Barabanki to the Government apprising the Government that the petitioner would be retiring on 31.10.2020, therefore, proper decision be taken for making payment of the post retiral benefits to the petitioner. As per the aforesaid letter, the benefit of Provident Fund with interest was paid to the petitioner. This case listed twice on 18.1.2021 and 5.2.2021 and nothing was submitted or shown by the State-respondents regarding any legal impediment in making payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner.
By means of this petition, the petitioner being a Class-IV employee is requesting that his post retiral benefits be paid w.e.f. 1.11.2020 as he retired from service on 31.10.2020 and he be also paid the admissible interest on the delayed payment of post reitral benefits.
Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that if some more time is granted to him, he shall seek further instructions but considering the fact that the petitioner being a Class-IV employee has retired from service on 31.10.2020 and has been paid Provident Fund with interest and the competent authority of Zila Panchayat, Barabanki has requested the Government for making payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner and the entire service record of the petitioner is unblemished and there is no legal impediment in making payment of post retiral benefits as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition, therefore, I hereby decide this writ petition finally at the admission stage directing opposite party no.1 to issue appropriate orders, if it is so required under law, with promptness so that payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner can be made by opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, within a period of one month and as soon as opposite party no.2 i.e. Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Barabanki receives orders from the State Government, payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner shall be made within a period of two months thereafter. The petitioner may also claim interest on the delayed payment of post retiral benefits, if it is provided under the law.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]