Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16116 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shri Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Sen Singh Vatsa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed in the matter on 1.8.2018:-
"Petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.2017. His grievance is that his pension has not been correctly fixed inasmuch as his working during the period 6.1.1974 to 16.11.1977 at Mirzapur has not been certified. Upon petitioner's complaint, the authority concerned has observed that the issue needs to be examined at the level of the District Agriculture Officer, Mirzapur.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions from the respondent no. 3 with regard to aforesaid working of the petitioner by the next date fixed. Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 may also obtain instructions in the matter.
Post as fresh on 8.8.2018."
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which petitioner was on medical leave between 6.10.1974 to 16.11.1977, which was not sanctioned. It is also stated that petitioner was not paid salary for the aforesaid period. As per the instructions, there are no signatures on the medical certificates adduced, and in the absence of sanction of medical leave for the aforesaid period, the authorities have rightly excluded this period for the purpose of working out petitioner's entitlement to receive pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all papers were available before the authorities and for any delay on part of the authorities, the petitioner cannot be victimized.
Perusal of the records would go to show that petitioner had superannuated in the year 2007. It is not in dispute that petitioner was on medical leave during the period in question. It is further not denied that salary was not released to petitioner during the said period. Although learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has been paid salary during this period, but there is no averment in that regard in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also places reliance upon page 49 of the paper book, which contains endorsement acknowledging sanction of leave for different periods. Admittedly below the endorsement in each of these entries, there is a clear cutting. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be said to be unjustified in denying consideration to these documents. As per the respondents, no medical certificate has otherwise been produced before the authorities concerned.
From the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this Court finds that petitioner has not been able to substantiate his sickness during the period 6.10.1974 to 16.11.1977, and therefore, if the authorities have not certified his working for such period, no exception can be taken to it. Even otherwise, all issues are raised by petitioner almost 10 years after his retirement. Such a stale claim cannot be entertained, particularly as there are no supporting records available. No direction, therefore, need be issued, as is prayed for in this petition.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2018 Anil