Allowed

Sharda Prasad Pal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018WRIA/6444/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Vice Chairman's order of compulsory retirement from the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The Court held that the order, containing details of misconduct causing stigma, was not simplicitor but punitive, thereby requiring a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order of compulsory retirement dated 25.11.2017 by Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority is set aside. Liberty granted to pass a fresh order in terms of Rule 56(C) of Fundamental Rules.

Sharda Prasad Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6444 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sharda Prasad Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Mahesh Narain Singh for the respondents.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed against the order of Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority dated 25.11.2017, by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.

¶6

Apart from various other arguments, one of the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the order of compulsory retirement is not simplicitor in nature, rather it is punitive, inasmuch as, it has mentioned various acts which had caused stigma on the candidature of the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing, no such stigma could have been caused in the order of compulsory retirement. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Swaran Singh Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, AIR 2010 SC 151 . On the other hand, Additional Advocate General has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Verma vs. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi, Laws (SC) 2011 9 121 , Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand, Laws (SC) 2010 9 51, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Hari Kishan Verma, Laws (SC) 2015 3 93, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others vs. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551, Ram Gopal Kureel vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (11) ADJ 65 (DB) (LB), Triloki Ram vs. District Judge & Another, 2015 (4) ADJ 126 (DB) and Posts & Telegraphs Board & Others vs. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 .

¶7

I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in the impugned order, various acts of misconduct relating to the petitioner have been mentioned. Thus, the impugned order causes stigma upon the candidature of the petitioner. Although power under Rule 56(C) of Fundamental Rules have been relied upon for directing for compulsory retirement, but according to Rule 56(C) of Fundamental Rules, the order is not simplicitor in nature.

¶8

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed . Order of Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority dated 25.11.2017, directing for compulsory retirement of the petitioner is set aside. Vice Chairman shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order, in terms of Rule 56(C) of Fundamental Rules. It shall also be open to proceed on the basis of same Screening Committee Report. The petitioner will have liberty to challenge the order so passed and the order passed in this writ petition shall not affect the rights of the petitioner, in any way.

¶9

Order Date :- 19.3.2018 Jaideep/-

Sharda Prasad Pal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Prasad Pal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Tripathi Vs State of up and others

harendra kumar pandey and 08 others Vs the secretary of personnel/karmik and another

uma shankar singh Vs State of U.P. and 02 others

Mazahir Hasan Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Rama Pandey and 3 Others Vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Additional District Judge Court No. 3 Mainpuri and 6 Others

Suresh Chandra Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others