Allowed

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2020WRIA/4711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired employee of District Cooperative Bank Bijnor. The court held that the respondents lacked authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings or deduct benefits after his retirement because relevant regulations were absent at the time. Applying Dev Prakash Tewari, the court set aside proceedings and ordered restoration of benefits.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice dated 05.05.2017 and order dated 04.01.2018 set aside; writ of mandamus issued to ensure retiral benefits within two months.

Mahendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4711 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diptiman Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Lal,Satyam Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶6

It appears from the record that the petitioner, who was an employee of District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bijnor retired on 31.12.2016. After his retirement, he received a show cause notice dated 05.05.2017 qua to the charges of the year 2013. Once his retiral benefits had not been ensured by the respondent no. 2 then he had no other option except to approach this Court by preferring earlier a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60562 of 2017 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 04.01.2018 asking the competent authority i.e. respondent no.2 to decide his claim. In response thereof, the order impugned dated 04.01.2018 has been passed, whereby his claim has been denied.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the services of the petitioner are governed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (in brevity, 'Regulations, 1975'). As such, he submits that the respondent no.2 is not empowered/vested to continue the departmental inquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction from the departmental benefits payable to the petitioner. At the relevant point of time, there was no rule/regulation available to the Cooperative Society to hold such an inquiry and in bereft any proceedings, the entire action dehost the Regulations, 1975. Moreover, he retired in the year 2016 and the show cause notice which was given to the petitioner, relates to the charge of the year 2013. In respect of his submission he has also relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow And Others, 2014 (7) SCC 260 . The relevant portion of the judgement reproduced herein below:

¶8

"In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid Regulations,

¶9

it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement."

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel who represent the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that as per the amended rules, the Cooperative Society has every right to proceed against the delinquent employee and the disciplinary proceedings are maintainable as per amended regulation published/gazetted on 13.02.2019.

¶11

Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

So far as the facts are concerned, the same are admitted by the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2016. The show cause notice was issued after his retirement on 05.05.2017. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 has relied upon amended regulation of the year 2019. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Prakash Tewari case (supra), such action cannot be accepted. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time no provisions were available to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action or to issue any show cause notice, therefore, there was no authority vested in the Cooperative Society for continuing the inquiry/departmental proceedings for the purpose of imposing any reduction or to deny the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner, in absence of any authority the entire action cannot be accepted by this Court.

¶13

Consequently, the show cause notice dated 05.05.2017 and the order dated 04.01.2018 are set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to ensure retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.11.2020 Lbm/-

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt. Prem Sri Alias Nanhi Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Saif Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Geeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mahendra Pratap Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt.Suman Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others