The Allahabad High Court has stayed the order to recover excess amount from the pension of two retired head jail wardens.
A Single Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Vijay Nath Pathak and Another.
By means of the petition, the petitioners have prayed the following relief:-
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 23.07.1987 read with clarification made in Government Order dated 06.12.1990 issued by Finance (General) Section 3 Government of Uttar Pradesh to the extent it provides that the restoration of full pension of an employee will be done after completion of 15 years as contained in Annexures Nos 2 and 3 to the writ petitions.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to restore the commuted pension after expiry of 10 years and 11 months or at best 11 years instead of 15 years as provided in the G.Os dated 23.07.1987 read with 06.12.1990.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to make deduction against commutation amount from the petitioners’ monthly pension after the expiration of 10 years 11 months or at best 11 years.
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioners’ monthly pension after completion of 10 years and 11 months, together with its interest.”
The Court noted from the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Court that the petitioners are retired Head Jail Warden and more than 11 years have passed since they have retired.
The counsel for the petitioner has further invited the attention of the Court towards the objection being noted by the passing section of the Court, whereby, the bench copy was required for the reason that the petition is amenable before the Division Bench as the Rules have been challenged and while removing the defect, it has been indicated that the similar petitions are pending before the Single Judge, wherein, the similar relief has been prayed, therefore, the petition may be entertained by the Single Judge.
He has also submitted that though in the petition the Rules have not been assailed but the Government order has been assailed which attempted to supplement the Uttar Pradesh Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1941.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioners are not aggrieved from the Rules, 1941 but from the Government order which has been assailed. Therefore, if any Government Order has been assailed on the ground that the aforesaid Government Order is supplementing the Rules causing prejudice to the petitioners which may not be permissible under the law and on that relief, the writ petition would be amenable before the Single Judge.
The Court observed that the matter requires consideration.
“List and connect with Writ-A No 5617 of 2024 (Dr Om Prakash Srivastava and others Vs State of U.P and Others).
Until further order of the Court, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners,” the Court ordered.