- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Shukla holding brief of Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner is a retired employee of the Nagar Nigam Allahabad and had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 19290 of 2014 (Abdul Lateef Versus State of U.P. and others). The Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 02.04.2014, which is extracted below: - "The petitioner is a retired employee of Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. It appears that when retiral dues were not paid to him, he filed Writ Petition No. 38542 of 2010 and during its pendency, the respondents paid a sum of Rs. 2,53,638/ - towards admitted monitory benefits after retirement. As regards the remaining amount, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the respondents, who were directed to pass a reasoned speaking order. It appears that when the aforesaid order of this Court was not complied with, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, in which further amount of Rs. 2,15,000/ -, Rs. 61,000/ - and Rs. 57,800/ - were paid to the petitioner towards remaining retiral dues. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application/representation before respondent No. 2 on 18.12.2013 in which he claimed 12% interest on delayed payment of Rs. 3,33,800/ - since 31.01.2009. When no heed was paid to the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition claiming interest @ 12% per annum on delayed payment of Rs. 3,33,800/ -. Sri R.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submits that the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest shall be examined by the respondent No. 2 and necessary orders will be passed within such time as may be directed by this Court.. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on sum of Rs. 3,33,800/ - as contained in his representation dated 18.12.2013 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and which shall be examined by respondent No. 2, strictly in accordance with law."
(3.) PURSUANT thereof, the Nagar Ayukt has passed the impugned order dated 26th April, 2014 stating that the entire post retiral and terminal benefits has already been paid to the petitioner, since the Nigam is in financial loss, the arrears of dues of the employees arising due to the implementation of 6th pay commission recommendations could be distributed after receiving a grant of Rs. 23.63 crores from? the Government. Since the entire amount of post retiral and terminal benefits has already been paid, the petitioner is not entitled to any other benefits, thus, rejecting the petitioner's repesentation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary power in favour of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;