RAM SHANKER SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2011-11-339
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 24,2011

Ram Shanker Shukla Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
(2.) IT appears from the pleadings as well as documents annexed with writ petition that the petitioner who was working as Tehsildar, was promoted on the post of Deputy Collector on 12.11.1986. However, during service, he was served with two charge sheets dated 22.8.1989 and 28.8.1989. He was not held guilty during the inquiry but the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a show cause to deduct 25% amount from the pension, the petitioner was entitled to receive. The petitioner submitted a reply but finally disciplinary authority passed the order deducting 25% of pension. Petitioner challenged the order before the State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.20207 of 1997 which was also rejected. The said order was questioned by way of writ petition No.59 (S/B) of 2004 which was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to get a show cause notice when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry report and thus the Division Bench quashed the order passed by the Tribunal as also the one passed by the disciplinary authority dated 4.10.1995 and granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order while keeping in view the observation made in the judgment. Thus, towards the said directions, the disciplinary authority passed the order on 20.9.2011 closing the departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner without imposing any punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner vide Annexure -5 to the writ petition, submitted representation to the Secretary, Board of Revenue to claim interest on the post retrial dues paid after 22 years from the date of retirement.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was made to suffer for no fault on his part for 22 years, therefore, he was entitled to get interest on the post retrial dues for the said period since the date of his retirement. Learned counsel also submitted that on his representation as aforesaid, the competent authority has not passed any order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.