Back
VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN
Lakshmi Narayan Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition is preferred challenging the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Gorakhpur. In the writ petition further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to sanction final pension of the petitioner and pay such final pension including arrears of pension of the petitioner. The petitioner has further sought direction to sanction and disburse all outstanding retirement benefits of the petitioner along with his salary from the date of suspension till date of retirement with interest.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector in the Agriculture Department of the State on 26.2.1979. The designation of post of Soil Conservation Inspector was subsequently designated as Technical Assistant Grade - C.
4. On account of non-sanction of the promotion payscale on the post of Senior Technical Assistant Grade - B,
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue post-retirement without specific provisions, and recovery from retirement benefits is impermissible without legal authority.
Departmental proceedings against retired employees must comply with Article 351-A, requiring Governor's sanction and adherence to time limits for validity.
The show cause notice for recovery from a retired employee must have the necessary sanction of the Board of Directors, as per Regulation 351-A and Rule 9(1) of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961.
Recovery of embezzled amounts from an employee without departmental inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and the right to pension is protected as property under Article 300A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, particularly Rule 9, and G.O.Ms.No.1097 in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retir....
Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue after an employee's retirement in absence of explicit provisions allowing such continuation in service rules.
Gratuity is not payable during pending disciplinary proceedings against a government servant, while provisional pension is allowed until the conclusion of such proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
