# (2010) 2 ILRA 750

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 750
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20867 of 2003
- **Bench:** Devendra Pratap Singh, Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2010-2-ilra-750-41687
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art-226-interestpetition while working in Jalaun selected
by as English lecturer by the Commission
and
posted
in
Aligarh
on
1.7.96immediately applied for transfer of G.P.S
account from earlier College-inspite of
direction issued by the authority new
account open only on 10.2.99-claim of
interest during intervening period-can
not be denied-No laps or negligence on
part of petitioner attributed-can not be
penalized.

Held: Para 5

Apparently, no lapse or negligence has
been attributed to the petitioner in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State respondents. It is also apparent
that the delay is on the part of the State
respondents in transferring the account
and therefore, the petitioner cannot be
penalized for the delay and as such he is
entitled for addition of the interest on
the principle amount without any gap of
the intervening period and should also
be entitled to recurring amount of
interest which became due. It is settled
principle of law that a person cannot be
penalized or deprived of his legal due
without attributing any commission or
2 All Vijay Pal Singh V State of U.P. and others
751
omission on his part. On his appointment
as Lecturer in English at Aligarh the
petitioner immediately had informed the
Authorities which took time in finalizing
the transfer and therefore, the petitioner
is entitled to the relief claimed.

## Text

750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
aforesaid Case Crime No. 221 of 2010
registered at Police Station Kuber Sthan,
Kushi Nagar, therefore, we further
reiterate that this security arrangement
shall continue with the petitioners no. 1, 2
and 3 and shall not be withdrawn by the
respondents without leave of the Court as
it is extension of security by this Court for
protection of witnesses of criminal case.
In our view, providing such security to
protect the witness of prosecution in a
pending criminal case, does not fall
within purview of Government Order
wherein provisions for providing security
of armed police or gunner to other
persons have been given.

49.

After
completion
of
investigation the C.B.I. shall proceed in
accordance with the provisions of law
without any further reference to this
Court.

50. With the aforesaid observation
and
direction,
writ
petition
stands
disposed of finally.

Note- Office is directed to supply a
copy of this order to Sri N.I. Jafri, learned
Advocate appearing for C.B.I. before this
Court,
by
22nd
July,
2010
for
communication and necessary action. A
copy of this order shall also be sent by the
office to Superintendent of Police, Kushi
Nagar for necessary information and
action and to A.C.J.M. Kasia, District
Kushi Nagar for keeping the same on
record of the case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20867 of 2003

Vijay Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Raj Singh 'Jadaun'

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art-226-interestpetition while working in Jalaun selected
by as English lecturer by the Commission
and
posted
in
Aligarh
on
1.7.96immediately applied for transfer of G.P.S
account from earlier College-inspite of
direction issued by the authority new
account open only on 10.2.99-claim of
interest during intervening period-can
not be denied-No laps or negligence on
part of petitioner attributed-can not be
penalized.

Held: Para 5

Apparently, no lapse or negligence has
been attributed to the petitioner in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State respondents. It is also apparent
that the delay is on the part of the State
respondents in transferring the account
and therefore, the petitioner cannot be
penalized for the delay and as such he is
entitled for addition of the interest on
the principle amount without any gap of
the intervening period and should also
be entitled to recurring amount of
interest which became due. It is settled
principle of law that a person cannot be
penalized or deprived of his legal due
without attributing any commission or
2 All Vijay Pal Singh V State of U.P. and others
751
omission on his part. On his appointment
as Lecturer in English at Aligarh the
petitioner immediately had informed the
Authorities which took time in finalizing
the transfer and therefore, the petitioner
is entitled to the relief claimed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree
Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has sought a
mandate for payment of the interest
amount for the delay in transfer from his
old G.P.F. account to the new account.

3. The admitted facts are that the
petitioner was initially appointed as a
Lecturer of English in M.P. College,
Konch, District Jalaun on 24.10.1980.
While working as such he was selected
by
the
Higher
Education
Service
Commission, Allahabad and appointed as
Lecturer in English in D.S. College,
Aligarh where he joined on 1.7.1996
after demitting office in his earlier
college on 30.6.1996. On account of the
aforesaid the petitioner requested for
transfer of his G.P.F. account from his
earlier College to the D.S. College,
Aligarh and the Director of Higher
Education vide order dated 13.1.1998
issued the necessary orders to the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Jalaun.
In
pursuance thereof, the G.P.F. amount
was transferred to his new account no.
321 only on 10.2.1999. However, the
interest of the intervening period was not
added while transferring the aforesaid
amount and on the representation of the
petitioner the Directorate passed another
order on 21.6.1999 yet the accrued
interest of Rs. 18886.75/- has not been
added in his transferred G.P.F. account
and thus this petition.

4. The stand taken by the
respondents in their counter affidavit is
that they have done their best but due to
the delay involved in the procedure for
transferring the account, they cannot be
held responsible.

5.

Apparently,
no
lapse
or
negligence has been attributed to the
petitioner in the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State respondents. It is also
apparent that the delay is on the part of
the State respondents in transferring the
account and therefore, the petitioner
cannot be penalized for the delay and as
such he is entitled for addition of the
interest on the principle amount without
any gap of the intervening period and
should also be entitled to recurring
amount of interest which became due. It
is settled principle of law that a person
cannot be penalized or deprived of his
legal
due
without
attributing
any
commission or omission on his part. On
his appointment as Lecturer in English at
Aligarh the petitioner immediately had
informed the Authorities which took time
in finalizing the transfer and therefore,
the petitioner is entitled to the relief
claimed.

6. For the reasons above, this
petition succeeds and is allowed and it is
held that the petitioner is entitled for his
interest on the principle amount while it
stood deposited in the treasury at Jalaun.
He is also entitled to get the amount
included in the principle amount without
any intervening gap and also for
recurring amount of interest which
became due thereon. Accordingly, the
respondents are directed to add Rs.
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
18,886/- along with pendentilite interest
at the admissible rate and addition in the
principal amount of G.P.F. at the
prevailing rate of interest.

7. In the circumstances of the case,
no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22903 of 2010

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and
another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Virendra Singh
Sri Anjani Kumar
Sri Shashi Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mukesh Prasad,
Sri Vijay Kumar Dixit
Sri V.K. Nagaich
C.S.C.

Northern India Ferries Act-1978-Section8-Settlement
of
ferries
Ghat-lease
granted
without
approved
of
commissioner-held-no
right
acureddirection
issued
for
expediting
the
consideration.

Held: Para 14

In view of above, we are of the view that
the approval of bid is required to be
taken from the Commissioner. It is
relevant to note that the condition of
advertisement
Clause
4
clearly
contemplates
approval
of
the
Commissioner. Hence, we are satisfied
that approval of the Commissioner is
mandatory. The above bid having not yet
been approved by the Commissioner, we
are of the view that the Commissioner
may take an appropriate decision with
regard to the bid alleged to be held on
31.12.2009
after
considering
the
objection of the petitioner within four
weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him.
Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat
submits that all the papers have already
been forwarded to the Commissioner.
Case law discussed:
2002 (93) RD 778

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner. Sri V.K. Dixit has appeared on
behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Sri
Mukesh Prasad has appeared on behalf of
respondent no. 5. Learned Standing
Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1 and
2.

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exhcanged between the parties
and with the consent of both the parties,
the petition is being finally disposed of.

3. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the
order
dated
09.02.2010
issued
by
respondent no. 3. A mandamus has also
been sought commanding respondent nos.
2 and 3 to grant the ferry rights of ghats
Bhedi
Kharda,
Bhedi
Jalalpur,
Himmanpura,
Bhedi
Khurd,
District
Hamirpur in favour of the petitioner.

4. Petitioner's case in the writ
petition is thatthe petitioner is a registered
Cooperative Society of fishermen and
boatmen registered with the Registrar