# Chaudhary Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1151
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-05
- **Bench:** R.K. Agarwal, Bharati Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chaudhary-shankar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40763
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-226-Fixation of
Pension- Petitioner retired as Additional
District Magistrate (J)-on 13.10.63-G.O.
dated 13.04.2000-providing 50% Basic
Pay of revise Pay scale of Rs.10,00015,200-held-entitled
Rs.5000/-
per
month
toward
pension-fixation
of
Rs.4167/- wholly illegal-contrary to the
provision of G.O.-direction issued to pay
interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from September 2000 to till the date of
actual payment-difference of amount so
calculated w.e.f. 01.01.1996 be paid with
10% interest per annum.

Held: Para 7 and 8

Having given our anxious consideration
to the various plea raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that the
Government Order dated 13th April, 2000
specifically provides for payment of at
least 50% of the minimum of the revised
pay scale as on 1st January, 1996 to the
pensioners.
There
is
no
dispute
regarding revised pay scale of Rs.10000-
3All] Chaudhary Shankar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1151
15200 in respect of the post from which
the petitioner had retired. Thus, he was
entitled
for
Rs.5000/-
as
pension
payable from 1st January, 1996. The
fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is,
therefore, wholly illegal and contrary to
the provisions of Government Order
dated 13th April, 2000.

So far as the claim of interest is
concerned, we find that the Apex Court
in the cases of Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State
of U.P. and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 742
and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 has
held that the State is liable to pay simple
interest on the delayed payment of
retiral benefits. As admittedly the arrears
of
revised
pension
were
paid
in
September, 2000, and the pension in the
revised pay scale, pursuant to the
Government Order dated 13th April,
2000, has wrongly been fixed, the
petitioner is entitled for interest also.
We, therefore, direct the respondent nos.
1 and 4 to pay interest at the rate 12%
per annum on the amount of arrears paid
in September, 2000 from the date when
it became due till the date of actual
payment
and
further
to
fix
the
petitioner's pension at Rs.5000/- plus
allowances from 1.1.1996 onwards. The
petitioner shall also be paid interest on
the arrears of the difference amount so
calculated at the rate of 10% per annum
from the date it became due till the date
of its actual payment. The difference
amount along with interest shall be paid
to the petitioner within one month from
the date a certified copy of this order is
filed before the respondent nos. 1 and 4.
Case law discussed:
2000 (1593) U.P.& BR
1999 SCC(L&S)-742
2000 (2) UPLBEC-1599

## Text

1150 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
thus be covered under the definition of the
workman given under the Act.

9. Even otherwise, in the plaint filed
by the petitioner in Suit No. 7 of 1995,
which was subsequently withdrawn by
him, it had been admitted by the petitioner
that he was working in the management
cadre. Sri Shyam narain has, however,
submitted that such assertion in the plaint
would not amount to admission on the
part of the petitioner as the suit filed by
him had been withdrawn. Since on the
basis of evidence adduced by the parties,
it has already been proved beyond doubt
that the petitioner was not a workman, I
am thus not inclined to go into the said
question as to whether an admission in the
suit (which was subsequently withdrawn)
would be binding on the petitioner in
proceedings under the Industrial disputes
Act. From the findings recorded by the
Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner was
performing managerial duties and could
not be treated as a workman for the
purposes of the Act and as such, there was
no valid industrial dispute and the order
of
reference
made
by
the
State
Government under the Act was without
jurisdiction.

10. Accordingly, the award passed
by the Tribunal is confirmed and this writ
petition is dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2006.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 15109 of
2002

Chaudhary Shankar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.P. Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Saitsh Chaturvedi
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri R.A. Yadav
S.C.

Constitution of India-226-Fixation of
Pension- Petitioner retired as Additional
District Magistrate (J)-on 13.10.63-G.O.
dated 13.04.2000-providing 50% Basic
Pay of revise Pay scale of Rs.10,00015,200-held-entitled
Rs.5000/-
per
month
toward
pension-fixation
of
Rs.4167/- wholly illegal-contrary to the
provision of G.O.-direction issued to pay
interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from September 2000 to till the date of
actual payment-difference of amount so
calculated w.e.f. 01.01.1996 be paid with
10% interest per annum.

Held: Para 7 and 8

Having given our anxious consideration
to the various plea raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that the
Government Order dated 13th April, 2000
specifically provides for payment of at
least 50% of the minimum of the revised
pay scale as on 1st January, 1996 to the
pensioners.
There
is
no
dispute
regarding revised pay scale of Rs.10000-
3All] Chaudhary Shankar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1151
15200 in respect of the post from which
the petitioner had retired. Thus, he was
entitled
for
Rs.5000/-
as
pension
payable from 1st January, 1996. The
fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is,
therefore, wholly illegal and contrary to
the provisions of Government Order
dated 13th April, 2000.

So far as the claim of interest is
concerned, we find that the Apex Court
in the cases of Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State
of U.P. and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 742
and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 has
held that the State is liable to pay simple
interest on the delayed payment of
retiral benefits. As admittedly the arrears
of
revised
pension
were
paid
in
September, 2000, and the pension in the
revised pay scale, pursuant to the
Government Order dated 13th April,
2000, has wrongly been fixed, the
petitioner is entitled for interest also.
We, therefore, direct the respondent nos.
1 and 4 to pay interest at the rate 12%
per annum on the amount of arrears paid
in September, 2000 from the date when
it became due till the date of actual
payment
and
further
to
fix
the
petitioner's pension at Rs.5000/- plus
allowances from 1.1.1996 onwards. The
petitioner shall also be paid interest on
the arrears of the difference amount so
calculated at the rate of 10% per annum
from the date it became due till the date
of its actual payment. The difference
amount along with interest shall be paid
to the petitioner within one month from
the date a certified copy of this order is
filed before the respondent nos. 1 and 4.
Case law discussed:
2000 (1593) U.P.& BR
1999 SCC(L&S)-742
2000 (2) UPLBEC-1599

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

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:

"(a) Writ order or direction to the
respondent No.1 to allow the benefit of
the provisions of Civil Service Regulation
Article 474A(b), which provides the
benefit of 30 years as qualifying service
for full pension notionally for 27 1⁄2 years
of service to claim full pension at 55 years
retirement age besides the petitioner may
be allowed the consequential benefits as
well which is based on law. (Annexure-
No. 12 to the writ petition).

(b) Writ order or direction in the nature
of mandamus to pay 50% of minimum of
the revised pay scale for the post of
A.D.M(J) last held by the petitioner,
which is Rs. 10000 x 30/60 = Rs. 5000/-
per month from 01-01-1996, as per G.O.
Dated
13-4-2000
based
on
recommendation of 5th Central Pay
Commission, as adopted by the U.P. State
Government.

(c) Writ order or direction in the nature
of mandamus to respondents No. 1 and 3
to pay to the petitioner an interest @ 18%
per annum amounting to Rs. 64,000/-
approximately, as per law laid down by
the Apex Court in V.L. Mehrotra Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and other reported
in U.P. & B.R. 2000(1593) on delayed
payment of Benefits under Rule 11 on the
following amounts detailed in para-10 of
the writ petition.

(d) Writ order or direction to respondent
No.3 to refix the pension of the petitioner
keeping in view the principles laid down
in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of
India referred to in para 7 (ii) of the writ
petition.
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
(e) Order to grant any other and further
relief on the facts and circumstances of
the case including the cost of filing this
writ petition."

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to
the present writ petition are as follows:-

2. 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 1⁄2 years. Even though he
opted for the retirement benefits under
U.P. Retirement Benefit 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.

4. 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.

5. Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no.
3, however, submitted that the respondent
no. 3, vide order dated 28th November,
2001, had decided the representation of
the petitioner in compliance of the order
dated 11th February, 2000 passed by this
Court and the amount of pension as
determined is being paid to the petitioner.
3All] Smt. Neelanjana Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others 1153

6. Learned Standing Counsel, who
represents respondent nos. 1,2, and 4,
however, submitted that the pension has
been rightly calculated and re-fixed at
Rs.4167/- vide order dated 22nd June,
2001 and it needs no revision.

7. Having given our anxious
consideration to the various plea raised by
the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that the Government Order dated 13th
April, 2000 specifically provides for
payment of at least 50% of the minimum
of the revised pay scale as on 1st January,
1996 to the pensioners. There is no
dispute regarding revised pay scale of
Rs.10000-15200 in respect of the post
from which the petitioner had retired.
Thus, he was entitled for Rs.5000/- as
pension payable from 1st January, 1996.
The fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is,
therefore, wholly illegal and contrary to
the provisions of Government Order dated
13th April, 2000.

8. So far as the claim of interest is
concerned, we find that the Apex Court in
the cases of Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State
of U.P. and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 742
and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 has
held that the State is liable to pay simple
interest on the delayed payment of retiral
benefits. As admittedly the arrears of
revised pension were paid in September,
2000, and the pension in the revised pay
scale, pursuant to the Government Order
dated 13th April, 2000, has wrongly been
fixed, the petitioner is entitled for interest
also. We, therefore, direct the respondent
nos. 1 and 4 to pay interest at the rate
12% per annum on the amount of arrears
paid in September, 2000 from the date
when it became due till the date of actual
payment and further to fix the petitioner's
pension at Rs.5000/- plus allowances
from 1.1.1996 onwards. The petitioner
shall also be paid interest on the arrears of
the difference amount so calculated at the
rate of 10% per annum from the date it
became due till the date of its actual
payment. The difference amount along
with interest shall be paid to the petitioner
within one month from the date a certified
copy of this order is filed before the
respondent nos. 1 and 4.

9. As the petitioner is 99 years old, it
goes without saying that respondent nos.
1 and 4 shall accord top priority to this
matter and work out the amount and pay
the same to the petitioner within the
stipulated period so that the petitioner
may feel satisfied by enjoying the fruits of
his career during his life time. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

However, there shall be no order as
to costs. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2006.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 5585 of
2006

Smt. Neelanjana Gupta and others

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.K. Parekh