# Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 122
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3287 of 2010
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Kashi Nath Padney
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ramesh-chandra-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41621
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Benefits of G.P.F. and Pension Scheme
petitioner a reader in P.G. College-had -
opted-contributory
Provident
Fund
Scheme-retirement due on 30.6.2012
getting benefit of academic session19.11.2007 applied for charge of option
from C.P.F. to G.P.F. Scheme in terms of
G.O. dated 25.08.1999-refusal by placing
reliance upon G.O. 12th July 2000 -not
sustainable keeping in view of judgment
of Shir Gopal Gupta-offered by Apex
Court.

Held: Para 17 & 18

We may mention that in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 13169 of 2008 (Kirti Chand
Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others) connected with various other
Writ Petitions, similar controversy was
involved. A Division Bench of this Court
1 All] Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal V. State of U.P. and others
123
by its Judgment and Order dated 16th
April, 2009 (Annexure 8 to the Writ
Petition) decided the said Writ Petitions
following the decision of this Court in Dr.
Shri Gopal Gupta (supra), and gave
directions to the respondents in the said
Writ Petitions for extending the benefit
of the said Government Order dated 25th
August, 1999 to the petitioners in the
said Writ Petitions.

Respectfully
following
the
above
decisions, we decide the present Writ
Petition giving similar directions.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 25140 of 2001, Writ Petition
No. 13169 of 2008.

## Text

122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
well as the underwear worn by the
respondent which also on examination by
the Serologist was found to contain blood
which also supported the prosecution
case that the respondent had sexual
intercourse with the victim. PW2 who
knew the respondent prior to the incident
had no difficulty in identifying the
respondent as the person who committed
rape on her, also stated that the
respondent had covered her mouth with a
towel to prevent her from shouting for
help. Having perused the evidence like the
trial Court, we also find no reasons to
disbelieve her evidence. Hence, the socalled consent alternatively pleaded by
the counsel for the respondent cannot be
accepted.
The
argument
of
nonconsideration of the statement of the
accused recorded under Section 313,
Cr.P.C. to the effect that there was
animosity between the family of the victim
and the accused is liable to be rejected
because one of the defences of the
accused is that there was consent on the
part of the victim to have sex with him.
These two stands being self-contradictory,
cannot be accepted.
15. Thus, having considered the material
on
record
and
having
heard
the
arguments addressed on behalf of the
parties, we find no merit in the argument
of the learned counsel for the respondent
that the Trial Court erroneously convicted
the respondent."

26. No other argument was
advanced by learned senior counsel for
the appellant in support if this appeal,
which I find to be devoid of merits and is
hereby dismissed and the conviction and
sentence of the appellant as has been
implanted by the trial court in the
impugned judgement and order is hereby
confirmed. Appellant is in jail. He shall
remain in jail to serve out remaining part
of his sentence.

27. Let a copy of this judgement be
certified to the trial court for it's
intimation and further action.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE KASHI NATH PADNEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3287 of 2010

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Srivastava
Sri K.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Benefits of G.P.F. and Pension Scheme
petitioner a reader in P.G. College-had -
opted-contributory
Provident
Fund
Scheme-retirement due on 30.6.2012
getting benefit of academic session19.11.2007 applied for charge of option
from C.P.F. to G.P.F. Scheme in terms of
G.O. dated 25.08.1999-refusal by placing
reliance upon G.O. 12th July 2000 -not
sustainable keeping in view of judgment
of Shir Gopal Gupta-offered by Apex
Court.

Held: Para 17 & 18

We may mention that in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 13169 of 2008 (Kirti Chand
Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others) connected with various other
Writ Petitions, similar controversy was
involved. A Division Bench of this Court
1 All] Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal V. State of U.P. and others
123
by its Judgment and Order dated 16th
April, 2009 (Annexure 8 to the Writ
Petition) decided the said Writ Petitions
following the decision of this Court in Dr.
Shri Gopal Gupta (supra), and gave
directions to the respondents in the said
Writ Petitions for extending the benefit
of the said Government Order dated 25th
August, 1999 to the petitioners in the
said Writ Petitions.

Respectfully
following
the
above
decisions, we decide the present Writ
Petition giving similar directions.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 25140 of 2001, Writ Petition
No. 13169 of 2008.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the
parties are agreed that the controversy
involved in the present Writ Petition is
covered by the earlier decisions of this
Court, referred to hereinafter in the
present Judgment, and therefore, the
present Writ Petition may be decided at
this stage itself.

3. As per the averments made in the
Writ Petition, the petitioner is working on
the post of Reader in the Department of
Chemistry
in
D.N.
(P.G.)
College,
Meerut. The date of birth of the petitioner
is 11.11.1949, and he is to attain the age
of superannuation on 10.11.2011, and is
due to retire on 30.6.2012 after getting
Session benefit.

4. It appears that initially the
petitioner
opted
for
Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme (CPF). However,
by the Option Letter dated 19.11.2007
(Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition), the
petitioner sought to change his option
from
Contributory
Provident
Fund
Scheme (CPF) to General Provident Fund
Scheme (GPF) with Pension. The said
Option Letter was submitted by the
petitioner pursuant to the Government
Order dated 25.8.1999 (Annexure 3 to the
Writ Petition).

5. It is, interalia, prayed in the Writ
Petition that writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus be issued directing
the respondents to accord the benefit of
GPF plus Pension Scheme to the
petitioner
in
accordance
with
the
Government Order dated 25.8.1999, and
various decisions of this Court.

6. Facts relevant for deciding the
present Writ Petition are as under.

7. The State Government from time
to time has issued Government Orders
permitting the teachers to exercise their
options
for
switching
over
from
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme
(CPF) to General Provident Fund Scheme
(GPF) with Pension.

8. The last such Government Order
was issued on 25.8.1999 (Annexure 3 to
the Writ Petition) which permitted the
teachers to exercise their options before
one year of their retirement. However, by
the Government Order dated 5/6.5.2000, a
clarification was issued that option could
be exercised only by such teachers, who
were
governed
under
the
General
Provident Fund Scheme and not under the
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

9. It appears that this Court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition NO. 25140 of 2001
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(Dr. Shri Gopal Gupta and others Vs.
State of U.P and others) considered the
aforesaid
Government
Orders
dated
25.8.1999 and 5/6.5.2000, and held by the
Judgment and Order dated 26th October,
2006 as follows:

"....The policy of the Government
providing benefit of GPF plus pension
Scheme at no point of time denied the
benefits to those teachers who had not
opted for the said scheme prior to 25th
August, 1999 or during the period
prescribed either in the Government
Order of 1980 or 1982. Since the scheme
remained in existence and time for giving
option was extended from time to time, the
interpretation given by the State to the
aforesaid Government order dated 25th
August, 1999 and the clarifications dated
5th June, 2000 and 12th July, 2000
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The
petitioners
who
had
applied/opted for GPF plus pension
scheme though they were covered under
the CPF scheme, one year before their
date of retirement i.e. during the extended
period as per the Government Order
dated 25th August, 1999 could not have
been refused the said benefit on the
ground that the aforesaid scheme/option
was open only for those teachers who are
covered by the GPF scheme........"

10. Copy of the said Judgment and
Order dated 26th October, 2006 has been
filed as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition.

11. It further appears that the State
Government
filed
a
Special
Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court being
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 722 of 2008.

12. By the Order dated 3.11.2008
(Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition), their
Lordships
of
the
Supreme
Court
dismissed the said Special Leave Petition.

13. Thus, the aforesaid Judgment
and Order dated 26th October, 2006
became final.

14. This position has not been
disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.

15. In our opinion, the petitioner in
the present Writ Petition, who exercised
his option by the Option Letter dated
19.11.2007 (Annexure 4 to the Writ
Petition) in terms of the Government
Order dated 25.8.1999, is entitled to the
benefit of GPF Scheme with Pension.

16. As noted earlier, the petitioner is
due to retire on 30th June, 2012, and
therefore, the option exercised by the
petitioner by the Option Letter dated
19.11.2007 has been exercised as per the
requirement of the said Government
Order dated 25.8.1999.

17. We may mention that in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 13169 of 2008
(Kirti Chand Gupta and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others) connected with
various other Writ Petitions, similar
controversy was involved. A Division
Bench of this Court by its Judgment and
Order dated 16th April, 2009 (Annexure 8
to the Writ Petition) decided the said Writ
Petitions following the decision of this
Court in Dr. Shri Gopal Gupta (supra),
and gave directions to the respondents in
the said Writ Petitions for extending the
benefit of the said Government Order
dated 25th August, 1999 to the petitioners
in the said Writ Petitions.
1 All] Amit Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
125
18. Respectfully following the above
decisions, we decide the present Writ
Petition giving similar directions.

The Writ Petition is accordingly
allowed.

19. The respondents are directed to
give benefit of the Government Order
dated 25th August, 1999 in terms of the
option exercised by the petitioner within
three months of the filing of the certified
copy of this Order before the Director of
Higher
Education,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad.

20. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the parties will
bear their own costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERAMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4273 of
2010

Amit Kumar and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another. ..Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Brij Lal Shukla

Counsel for the opposite party:
Sri S.K. Upadhyay
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482Quashing of Criminal proceeding-offence
under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. With
3⁄4
D.P.
Act
matrimonial
dispute
informant
already
got
rejected
her
maintenance proceeding after having
Rs.100000/-towards
one
time
maintenance- the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A to present the torture of a
woman-
if
the
criminal
proceeding
allowed
to
continue-would
be
a
pediment in settlement of dispute apart
from harassment -proceeding quashed.

Held: Para 9

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion
that it would be an abuse of the process
of the Court, if the criminal proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is allowed to
continue. Therefore, to do the complete
justice, the proceedings of the said
criminal case should be quashed by this
Court in its inherent jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
2003(46)ACC779,
2006(30JIC
135
(Alld.),
2005(51)ACC217.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

1. By means of this application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
(in
short,
'the
Cr.P.C.'), the applicants (1) Amit Kumar,
(2) Smt. Mahendri, (3) Smt. Savita, (4)
Smt. Rajnees, (5) Smt. Mamchandra, (6)
Amrish, (7) Rajesh and (8) Suneel have
invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court
for quashing of the proceedings of
criminal case no. 2603 of 2009 (State Vs.
Amit Kumar and others) under section
498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act
arising out of crime no. 242 of 2008, P.S.
Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts leading to the filing of the
application under section 482 Cr.P.C., in
brief, are that marriage of applicant no. 1
Amit Kumar and opposite party no. 2
Smt. Aadesh Kumari took place on