Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32411 of 2008
Petitioner :- Radhe Shyam Chaurasiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Secy. Finance & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Chaurasia,Santosh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The claim of the petitioner is that his pension was incorrectly fixed. Certain other deductions were illegally made from the other terminal benefits. The petitioner had sought the relief for a direction to the respondents to pay 10% of the G.P.F. amount.
During the pendency of this writ petition, another writ petition, registered as Writ-A No. 25740 of 2011 (Radhey Shayam Chaurasia Vs. Union of India and Others) was filed by the petitioner seeking relief for release the entire G.P.F. amount. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2016. This Court upheld the stand of the respondent authorities in retaining the G.P.F. amount. The G.P.F. amount had been retained since excess payment had been made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of salary. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in the said writ petition on 20.10.2016, admittedly, some excess amount had been paid to the petitioner. The excess amount has to be recovered from him. The authorities can do so in accordance with law.
The petitioner claims that his pension has not been fixed correctly. The fixation of the pension of the petitioner was made by order dated 13.06.2007. By order dated 13.06.2007 the pension, gratuity and other dues of the petitioner were finalized by the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Allahabad. The order dated 13.06.2007 is addressed to the parent department of the petitioner, namely, Deputy Director, Consolidation, Pratapgarh. The order dated 13.06.2007 requires the parent department to examine the issue of computation of pension at its level. In case, the parent department comes to a different conclusion regarding the fixation of the pension of the petitioner, the department should clarify the situation and provide the alternative computation supported by the relevant Government Orders and the departmental orders.
It is submitted that the parent department has forwarded its opinion but no action has been taken thereon. The Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Allahabad has not adhered to the terms of its own order dated 13.06.2007. Consequently, the pension of the petitioner has not been fixed correctly and the petitioner continues to draw the pension lesser than his entitlement.
The last claim of the petitioner which is pressed before this Court is that Rs. 21,698/- + 6,138/- of his gratuity amount has been withheld by the respondent authorities.
It is open to the petitioner to make representation to the respondent No. 2 in regard to the correct fixation of his pension as well as the payment of the gratuity amount. The respondent No. 2 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order considering the claim of the petitioner to enhance the pension and release of gratuity in accordance with law. The exercise shall be completed within six months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of the representation, along with a copy of this order.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the pleadings of the writ petition nor has adjudged the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so with an independent mind and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Dhananjai