CHAUDHARY SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Chaudhary Shankar Singh, seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner was superannuated on attaining the age of 55 years on 31st October, 1963, while working on the post of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). He had put in a qualifying service of 27 - years. Even though he opted for the retirement benefits under U.P. Retirement Benfit Rules, 1961, yet he was wrongly classified under the U.P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 and was paid pension accordingly under the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961. On a representation being made, the pension of the petitioner was re-fixed on 30th June, 1987. The petitioner was not satisfied with the fixation of his pension and made several representations. When the authorities did not care to decide the representation of the petitioner, he was left with no other option but to approach this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7373 of 2000 in which this Court, vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2000 directed the authorities concerned to decide the representations made by the petitioner by a speaking order. Representation has since been decided. The pension has been revised and the revised pension along with the arrears has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner still not being satisfied with the revision of his pension in view of the provisions of the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, according to which he is entitled for being paid at least 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale of the post he was holding at the time of retirement, as on 1st January, 1996 as pension, for which he made another representation and the authorities have re-fixed the pension at Rs.4167/-. The submission is that he is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.5000/- as pension in terms of the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000.

(3.) We have heard Sri O.P. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, who represents respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is not in accordance with the Government Order dated 13th April, 2000 inasmuch as under the said Government Order the petitioner is entitled for pension of Rs.5000/- being 50% of minimum of the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200, which is the revised pay scale of the post from which the petitioner had retired. He further submitted that he is entitled for interest at the prevailing market rate on the amount of arrears which was paid to him in the month of September, 2000 and also on the amount of difference payable pursuant to the Government Order dated 13.4.2000.