BADARI NARAYAN SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 29.6.2016 passed by Executive Engineer (Provincial Division), Public Works Department, Ghazipur/third respondent. With a further request commanding the respondents to ensure the payment of post retirement benefits along with arrears w.e.f. the date of petitioner's retirement i.e. 31.12.2008 with compounding interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) It appears from the record in question that the petitioner who was working as Junior Engineer Civil in the respondent department, finally attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2008 with unblemished service record. Immediately thereafter, he gave a representation to the competent authority seeking 'No Dues Certificate' but eventually his retiral benefits had not been ensured. In the said backdrop, he had approached to this Court earlier by preferring Writ Petition No. 25342 of 2014 (Badri Narayan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 21.1.2016 with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ghazipur/third respondent to pass a final order in the matter preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In response thereof the order impugned has been passed which is under challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the order dated 29.6.2016 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) indicating therein that the entire decision so taken by the third respondent was based upon the letter dated 11.1.2010, which is claimed to be served upon the petitioner. He submits that the said letter was addressed to the Assistant Engineer (Store), Provincial Division, PWD, Ghazipur and the copy has been endorsed to the Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Executive Engineer (Store) and Sri R.N.Pandey and as such, it has been claimed on the face of record that the said letter had never been addressed to the petitioner and therefore there was no occasion to submit any explanation by the petitioner. So far as the letter dated 11.1.2010 is concerned, the same has been endorsed in the order dated 29.6.2016 and the same is not disputed. He further submits that so far as the retiral benefits, the same can only be stopped taking recourse of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations but at no point of time the department had taken recourse of the said regulation and therefore at this stage, retirement dues could not be stopped in absence of full-fledged enquiry in the matter.