DAYA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working on the post of Extension Educator in the department of Family Welfare since 6.9.1966. The post was subsequently redesignated as Health Education Officer. After rendering 36 years of service petitioner retired on 31.1.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. The second respondent Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi Region Varanasi while releasing the amount of pension and other retiral benefits with held on 30.4.2005 an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The amount was withheld to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner on wrong fixation of salary in the revised pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Joint Director Pension had written letters on 10.3.2011 and 15.4.2011 to the second respondent, Additional Director, Treasury and Pension with regard to the deduction of Rs. 50,000/- but no suitable action was taken. Aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being writ petition no. 42496 of 2011 which was disposed of on 29.7.2011 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant thereof, the second respondent, Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi by the impugned order dated 23.9.2011 declined to release the withheld gratuity of Rs. 50,000/- for the reason that there was irregularity in the fixation of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi and order dated 8.9.2004 deducting Rs. 50,000/- from the gratuity.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that alongwith petitioner, one Pashupati Nath Ojha was also working and he had challenged the orders dated 30.4.2005 and 23.9.2011 by filing Writ-A No. 59047 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2015. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Pashupati Nath Ojha, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.