Heard Sri Vikas Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Sharma, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel appeared for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
It is stated that the petitioner was holding the post of Junior Clerk/ Account Clerk and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019 from the said post, but till date the amount of pension and gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 19.12.2019, passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 35494 (SS) of 2019 (Prem Nath Mishra v. State Of U.P.).
The order dated 19.12.2019, passed in the Writ Petition No. 35494 (SS) of 2019 (Prem Nath Mishra v. State Of U.P.), reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 6 and Sri Satyanshu Ojh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.2 to 5.
Petition has been filed against order dated 17.10.2018. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is employee of Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology. Earlier also salary payment of petitioner was stopped by means of order dated 30.11.2017 on the ground that approval for same had not been granted by the State Government which was required since University is State Funded University. The aforesaid decision was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No.5169 (SS) of 2018 in which by means of interim order dated 20.02.2018, opposite parties were directed to make payment of salary to petitioner. In the said interim order, reliance was placed on a decision rendered in Writ Petition No.7160 (SS) of 2010 (Shujat Ahmad Khan & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and other) in which a similar controversy was considered and the following was held:
"The question for consideration before this Court at this stage is whether the decision taken by the Board of Management is required to be approval by the State Government, and if so, under what provision or the statutes of the university in question. The University in question is governed by U.P. Agricultural and Technology University Act, 1958. How the State Government will mange and control over the University is given in the Act. No such provision contained in the aforesaid Act or any statue frame thereunder in pursuance of Section 29 of the aforesaid Act, has been shown to this Court to the effect that the decision taken requires prior approval or approval after passing the resolution. "
Directions were thereafter issued on account of fact that approval of State Government was not required for the said purpose. It has been submitted that as a consequence of the interim order, petitioners were paid salary till the date of their superannuation on 28.02.2018 but thereafter certain post retiral benefits have not yet been paid to petitioner including pension.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that once this Court has already recorded a finding that approval of State Government is not required for making payment of service benefits to petitioner then there was no occasion for opposite parties to have stopped payment of pensionary benefits to them. It has also been submitted that even otherwise the only ground indicated in the impugned order dated 17.10.2018 for not making payment of post retiral benefits to petitioner is pendency of the earlier writ petition, which cannot be a ground to deprive petitioner of their just benefits.
Prima facie, submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner requires consideration for which opposite parties are granted six weeks time to file a detailed counter affidavit.
List in the week commencing 17.02.2020 alongwith Writ Petition No.5169 (SS) of 2018.
In the meantime, opposite parties are directed to make payment of Gratuity and provisional pension regularly to petitioner in terms of last pay drawn by petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to the petitioner of the Writ Petition No. 35494 (SS) of 2019 (Prem Nath Mishra v. State Of U.P.).
Prima facie, it appears from the averments made in the order dated 19.12.2019, passed in the Writ Petition No. 35494 (SS) of 2019 (Prem Nath Mishra v. State Of U.P.) that the case of the petitioner is similar to the petitioner of the said writ petition.
Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that the opposite parties shall make the payment of provisional pension and gratuity in terms of last pay drawn by the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
While considering the case of the petitioner, the competent Authority shall take note of last pay drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement.
List this case along with the Writ Petition No. 35494 (SS) of 2019 (Prem Nath Mishra v. State Of U.P.).
In the meantime, the opposite parties are directed to file counter affidavit.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 GK Sinha