Partly allowed

Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2020WRIA/10025/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order imposing salary recovery for a period after a regular appointee was permitted to join the post. The court held recovery unsustainable for that period but denied pensionary computation if officer was treated as still officiating.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order regarding salary for one month is set aside. Pensionary and other entitlements to be computed as observed.

Rana Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10025 of 2011

¶3

Petitioner :- Rana Pratap Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,Indal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Tandon, the learned Brief Holder for the State as well as Sri Indal Singh, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

¶6

The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 25 November 2010 commanding recovery of salaries from the petitioner for the period 20 May 2010 to 30 June 2010. The sixth respondent was selected to act as Principal of the Inter College in 2008. Due to the pendency of litigation as well as to some extent on account of his own placement at Port Blair and his request to be granted time he was not permitted to discharge the functions of Principal. In the interregnum the petitioner continued to work as Officiating Principal. Since the sixth respondent was not being permitted to join, he was constrained to approach this Court by way of a writ petition. Upon directions being issued on that petition he was ultimately permitted to join the post in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 20 May 2010. It appears that the Committee of Management still held out and did not permit the sixth respondent to take over actually and in fact as the Principal of the Institution. As a result of the action of the management, it is asserted that the petitioner here continued to discharge functions of Officiating Principal even after 20 May 2010 till he attained the age of superannuation on 30 June 2010. However and since pursuant to the orders passed by the High

¶7

Court, the sixth respondent had already been permitted to function as Principal and the respondents to ensure his joining, the District Inspector of Schools was faced with a situation where he would have to pay and disburse salaries to two persons in respect of the same post. It is that aspect which appears to have weighed with him in proceedings to pass the order impugned. It becomes pertinent to note that insofar as the issue of recovery of emoluments of one month is concerned, the Court finds itself unable to uphold the impugned order to the extent since it appears to be a position accepted by the State respondents that the petitioner continued to discharge duties as Officiating Principal during the period 20 May 2010 to 30 June 2010. In that view of the matter, the directions for recovery of salary for one month is rendered unsustainable.

¶8

Sri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that still leaves the issue with respect to fixation of pension. According to Sri Singh, since the petitioner retired as Officiating Principal his pensionary benefits are liable to be computed bearing the aforesaid in mind. The Court finds itself unable to countenance this submission since it is the admitted position that the sixth respondent had come to join the post of Principal albeit in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 20 May 2010. The State in that sense cannot be placed in a disadvantageous position or to bear the burden of two persons staking claim on the post of Principal. Once the sixth respondent had joined on 20 May 2010 and was the regularly selected candidate, it is he alone who was strictly speaking entitled to function as such and to draw emoluments in respect thereof. The petitioner appears to have continued with the tacit consent of the Management. In view thereof, the Court finds itself unable to accede to the prayer of fixation of pension treating the last pay drawn of the petitioner to be that of

¶9

Officiating Principal. His pensionary benefits consequently shall be liable to be computed accordingly.

¶10

The petition stands partly allowed . While the impugned order insofar as it directs recovery shall stand set aside, the pensionary and other entitlements of the petitioner shall be computed in accordance with what has been observed above.

¶11

Order Date :- 14.2.2020 Arun K. Singh

¶12

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 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

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Mainpuri Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Mainpuri Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Indumati Rai Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amarnath Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

State of U.P. and Others Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Gorakhpur and Others