Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Ompal Singh Irrigation Supervisor (Sinch Paryavekshak) – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims pension re-fixation considering all service years. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner sought compliance with prior mandamus; no response received. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court emphasizes finality of prior judgment; mandates compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. legislative changes cannot nullify final court judgments. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court reiterates legislative power cannot override judicial mandates. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. court quashes impugned order; mandates pension re-fixation. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Works Division-I, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Meerut, rejecting the petitioner’s claim to re-fix his pension, adding his services as a work charged employee to his regular service. The aforesaid claim is based on a mandamus of this Court issued in Writ-A No.14563 of 2018, decided on 14.02.2020. The basis to disregard the claim in enforcement of the mandamus is founded on the supervening promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validati
Legislative power cannot nullify a final judgment or mandamus issued by a court, reaffirming the principle of separation of powers and judicial supremacy.
(1) No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable – If two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional and other making it unconstitutional, former....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings issued by the High Court were for the purpose of regularization of the petitioner's service and fixation of pension, and not f....
petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionery service with effect from the date of his initial joining in the department in question, so the same shall be treated as service qualifying for pension an....
The court affirmed that no vested rights arise from erroneous retrospective regularization, and recovery from Class-IV employees for excess payments is impermissible under the law.
The Labour Court has inherent power to recall its order dismissing a case for default or procedural irregularity. The power of procedural review is different from the power of review on merits. In a ....
Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.
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
