SOHANVEERI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The record of writ petition was initially directed to be transmitted to Armed Force Tribunal, Lucknow by order dated 26.2.2010 passed by Hon. Rajiv Sharma, J. though the matter did not pertain to Armed Force Tribunal. The record sent thereto has been received back with letter dated 28.5.2002 by registered post. The order-sheet says that this matter does not relate to Armed Force and therefore, Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that for some mistake record was transmitted to Tribunal though it did not pertain to Armed Force. Since pleadings are complete, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashutosh Vaish, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The orders dated 27.11.2006, 29.11.2006 and 2.12.2006 are impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) The first letter dated 27.11.2006 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition whereby Executive Engineer, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., EDD, Dhampur has informed petitioner that her husband working on the post of Complaint Recorder died on 14.1.2004, ought to have retired on 31.1.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation but having continued thereafter illegally till date of his death, his family pension was wrongly fixed by taking his service beyond 58 years and, therefore, it is being revised and re-fixed to Rs. 1913.00 per month. Earlier orders otherwise issued are cancelled. It is also said that amount already paid in excess shall be adjusted against other dues payable to petitioner.