High CourtsSingle Bench

Jai Prakash Agrawal vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 UK CK 0229

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1038 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 380 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the revised pension to the petitioner along with its

arrears in accordance with office order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-2) issued by respondent no.1.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of petitioner dated 6-4-2021

(Annexure-1).

(iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

(iv) Award cost of the petition.â€​

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that having served with the respondents department, he retired in the year 2012. It is the grievance of the petitioner

that his pension is not revised in accordance with Office Order dated 12.11.2020, which has been issued by the respondents.

4.

At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should this Court entertain the writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as

constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only seeking fixation of his pension as per Office Memorandum dated

12.11.2020, issued by the respondents department.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the pension of the petitioner has to be revised as per Office Memorandum dated 12.11.2020

and the process is already underway. According to him, the respondents admits the admissible claim of the petitioner as per Office Memorandum

dated 12.11.2020.

7.

Since, the claim of the petitioner is not denied, the petition may be disposed of accordingly.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondents suggests eight weeks’ time for taking action as per Officer Memorandum dated 12.11.2020.

9.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner as per Office Memorandum

dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) within a period of eight weeks from today.