Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9257 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for grant of increments payable on the post of Senior Assistant as well as post of Administrative Officer were not granted to him. This had a cascading effect inasmuch as the pension of the petitioner was incorrectly fixed. The petitioner superannuated from the service in the year 2013. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court six years after his superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner will not claim any interest on the increment amount to which he is entitled in case the same is granted by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has made a representation in this regard but the same has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claims that his travel allowances were not disbursed to him though he was entitled to the same.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3-Executing Engineer, Rajghat Construction Division Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur.
The respondent No.3-Executing Engineer, Rajghat Construction Division Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding grant of increments, re-fixation of his pension as well as grant of travel allowances, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.
The respondent No.2-Finance Controller is also directed to give all required assistance and input as may be demanded by the respondent no.3 in the consideration of grant of increments, re- fixation of his pension as well as grant of travel allowances. In case the petitioner is found entitled to the aforesaid amounts, he shall not be entitled to any interest for delayed payment.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions of the writ petition nor has judged the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so with an independent application of mind.
With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Ashish Tripathi