PREMLATA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State responents as well as Sri Raj Kumar Vaishya, who has appeared for the private respondent.

(2.) In the absence of any consideration having been accorded and an exercise having been undertaken to evaluate the two competing claims, it is manifest that the State has clearly acted unfairly and arbitrarily. Insofar as the issue of payment of retiral benefits is concerned, the Court notes that neither the name of the petitioner nor that of the third respondent stands recorded in the service book. Even the so called entry as said to be appearing in the G.P.F. Pass Book is not accepted by the State since it is not signed by any competent authority. Consequently, the issue of release of benefits shall have to abide either by the orders that may be passed in the suit instituted by the petitioner or the decision that shall be taken by the second respondent in this regard.

(3.) However, rather than setting aside the order of 24 September 2016 on the strength of which the third respondent appears to have been taken into empoyment and has worked for the last four years, the ends of justice would merit this petition being disposed of on the following terms.