Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI
Rajedndra Prasad Inter College – Appellant
Versus
Shambhu Rao – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of shambhu rao's appointment and retirement (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding delay in payment and legality of appointment (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's reasoning on validity of retroactive action post-retirement (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal principles on payment entitlements and interest due to delays (Para 17 , 20) |
| 5. final ruling on dismissal of appeals and entitlement to benefits (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Applications.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Cause shown for delay in filing the appeals is sufficient.
3. Delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
3. Delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
1. Heard Sri K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The appellant in Special Appeal Defective No.927 of 2025 has approached this Court against the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 in Writ A No.1018 of 2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has simply directed to put up the case after the decision of the Special
Post-retirement withdrawal of appointment approval is illegal; retiral benefits are entitled to timely payment with interest on delays.
Employees cannot be denied salary or retiral benefits for prior approved service due to later administrative inquiries questioning appointment validity.
An employee unlawfully deprived of salary is entitled to interest on delayed payments, overriding the 'No Work No Pay' principle.
The Tribunal erred in attributing delay in pension payment to the petitioner; interest at 6% is due under Clause-5 of the government resolution for delayed retiral benefits.
The court established that failure to complete a departmental inquiry within the prescribed period invalidates the dismissal, entitling the employee to retirement benefits.
The court ruled that only approved service counts for seniority, while unapproved appointments do not confer such rights, emphasizing timely challenges to adverse orders.
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
