SHYAM KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Standing Counsel and Sri D.K. Seth, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4. There can be no better example than this case, which is a classical illustration of sorry state of affairs, whimsical attitude of State authorities and how the functionaries of the State Government are functioning, resulting in mental agony, all sorts of harassment and injury to a Government Servant, which is difficult to be compensated.

(2.) PETITIONER , while working on the post of Block Development Officer attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1983. Prior to retirement, petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was served with a charge sheet on 30.8.1982. Ultimately, the Agricultural Production Commissioner passed the punishment order dated 19.4.1983. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Sitapur passed an order of recovery. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, which was dismissed. Thereafter he assailed the order of punishment as well as the order of Tribunal before this Court by filing a writ petition No. 1345 (SB) of 1991. This Court while entertaining the writ petition stayed the order of recovery dated 22.6.1983. Ultimately, this writ petition was allowed by this Court and the recovery order for a sum of Rs. 75,066.15 was set aside.

(3.) IT appears that during pendency of the aforesaid litigation, the petitioner worked on the post of Block Development Officer, Mahauli, District Sitapur and ultimately retired from the said post. The opposite parties without any rhyme and reason did not pay the post -retiral dues. Vide order dated 4.8.1984, the Agricultural Production Commissioner passed an order granting provisional pension of Rs. 460/ - w.e.f. 1.7.1983. It is not in dispute that on 24.8.1998, the State Government issued an order for revising pension of the petitioner, who had been retired prior to 1.1.1986 and in view of the Government Order dated 24.8.1998, the District Development Officer, Sitapur passed an order for revising pension of the petitioner. Petitioner made his sincere efforts and devoted a lot of time of retired life in getting his post -retiral dues but all his efforts went in vain. In the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that there is delay in payment of post -retiral dues, but for it, the petitioner himself is liable. It has also been stated that the Treasury Officer, Lucknow, after adjusting a sum of Rs. 75,066.15/ - which was to be recovered from the petitioner, paid a sum of Rs. 2,82,796 to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 796508 dated 14.8.2001.