SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(All) 1835

SUDHIR AGARWAL
PARMATMA SAHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Miss Rashmi Tripathi, Anil Bhushan and Aditya Bhushan for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Aditya Bhushan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Bhushan, Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The writ petition is directed against orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by Finance Controller (Food and Civil Supplies), Government of U.P., Lucknow (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and 25th February, 2010 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Lucknow.

3. The facts, in brief, given rise to the present dispute are as under:

4. The petitioner joined Food and Civil Supply Department of State of Uttar Pradesh as Marketing Inspector in 1963 and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 14.10.1997. One of the grievance of the petitioner is that more than a decade had passed, but, the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner has not been paid at all. An order was passed on 14th October, 1997 by Regional Food Controller, Kanpur directing for recovery of Rs. 29719=85 from the petitioner pursuant to an audit objection raised in the audit report of Controller and Accountant General. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No. 37892 of 1998, w


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top