Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018WRIA/26914/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a condition imposed for compassionate appointment requiring salary deduction to recover dues caused by the petitioner's grandfather, the Court quashed the condition due to lack of statutory empowerment for such recovery.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order imposing the condition of salary deduction is quashed. Petitioner is directed to be recommended for appointment.

Ravi Kumar Vs District Cooperative Bank… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26914 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Respondent :- District Cooperative Bank Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K B Srivastav,Shiv Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by respondent no.2, Secretary / Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Jhansi, whereby while recommending compassionate appointment of the petitioner a condition has been imposed that in case petitioner wants such an appointment he should submit an undertaking on affidavit that he will leave 50% of his salary which shall be adjusted by the respondent no.2 towards the dues of his grand-father due against the employer.

¶7

This Court vide order dated 03.04.2017 sought an explanation from the respondents to explain why the recovery of the amount of loss caused by grand-father of the petitioner was not recovered from the father of the petitioner and now the same is being sought to be recovered from the petitioner in case he accepts the offer of compassionate appointment. The personal affidavit as required by the above order has been filed by the Chairman, District Co-operative Bank, Jhansi stating that the grand-father of the petitioner had caused loss to the society but in view of no enabling provision in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 providing for adjustment of the pension of the erring employees, no pecuniary loss caused to the society by embezzlement by the grandfather of the petitioner could be made.

¶8

Once it is admitted that there were no statutory provision for recovery of alleged embezzled amount from the grand-father of the petitioner, the same can be permitted to recovered from the grand-son i.e., petitioner, since there is again no statutory provision pointed out on behalf of the respondents, which may empower them to make such recovery from the petitioner.

¶9

In view of the above legal position, the impugned order

¶10

dated 12.04.2016 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed to the extent it imposed the condition of deduction of 50% of the salary of the petitioner for recovery of loss caused by his grand-father to the Bank. The respondents are directed to recommend compassionate appointment of the petitioner to the Institutional Service Board without imposing any further condition of the nature stated above.

¶11

Writ petition stands allowed to the extent stated above. Order Date :- 19.3.2018 SS

Ravi Kumar v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Pandey Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shaukat Ali Kadri Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Raj Kumar Lal Vs Lekhadhikari and Others

C/M Bapu Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Head Constable 43753 Satya Deo Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others