Disposed

Ram Mani v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Cooperative Department Secretariat and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2018WRIA/6859/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired state employee, challenged charge sheets post-retirement seeking quashing of proceedings and payment of leave encashment with interest. The court noted regulations bar post-retirement disciplinary action and disposed of the pending petition allowing fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file fresh representation with relevant papers and Supreme Court judgment; petitioner to produce certified copy of order.

Ram Mani Vs State of U.P through Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6859 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Mani Respondent :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Cooperative Department Secretariat And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Om Prakash Singh,Sushil Kumar Rao

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sushil Kumar Rao, for respondent-2.

¶4

The writ petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheets dated 7.1.2016, 2.8.2016, 30.8.2016 and 19.9.2016 issued against the petitioner and for mandamus directing respondents to make payment of entire leave encashment and the security amount along with interest due to delayed payment.

¶5

It has been stated that the petitioner was posted as junior Office Assistant in U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Naini, Allahabad(hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2016. The aforesaid charge sheets have been given to the petitioner. Under the U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975(hereinafter referred to as "Regulations"), there is no provision for continuance of disciplinary proceeding after retirement as the relationship of the employer and employee comes to end after retirement. Therefore, disciplinary proceeding now cannot be continued against the petitioner by the Corporation. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for payment of leave enchasment as well as security amount along with interest for delayed payment.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, 2014 (7) SCC 260 in which it has been held that after retirement service regulations does not permit continuance of disciplinary proceeding after retirement. He further relied upon a judgment this Court in Writ A No.2092 ofm2015 (Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 9.1.2018) in which interest at the rate of 8% per annum has been awarded for delayed payment. The petitioner has filed a representation in this respect before Managing Director, which is pending.

¶7

The petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation along with all relevant papers and a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today before respondent-2. In case the petitioner files a fresh representation before Managing Director (respondent-2), he shall pass appropriate order on it within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall also produce copies of the Supreme Court judgment in Dev Prakash Tewari's case(supra) and of this Court in Ashok Kumar Srivstava's case (supra) before respondent-2.

¶8

With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.

¶9

Order Date :- 8.3.2018 mt

Ram Mani v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Cooperative Department Secretariat and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mani v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Cooperative Department Secretariat and Another

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

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khilaf Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 others

M/S Hind Agro Industries Ltd. (Company Under the Companies Act) Vs Prescribed Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act/Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Others

Dharmveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Omvati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others