Ramadhar Alias Ramadhar Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:38965

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3372 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramadhar Alias Ramadhar Pal

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar,Ashutosh Rai Sharma,Km. Vishwa Mohini,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma,Vishal Kumar Upadhyay

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2020 whereby the respondents cancelled the regular appointment granted to the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant on 01.07.1989.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Pump Attendant on 01.07.1989 and continued to work till his retirement on 31.01.2020. It is argued that no proceedings could be initiated after the retirement that too without following the mandate of provisions contained in U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 or under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation, which are applicable to the respondents. The ground on which the order of termination were passed was that while obtaining the appointment, the petitioner had produced a copy of the I.T.I. Certificate, which was found to be false and fabricated.

¶9

The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is that at the time of appointment, the post of Pump Attendant was to be filled by the 'Direct Recruitment' and the qualification prescribed was physical fitness and ability to read and write Hindi fairly and should have working proficiency of the trade. There was no requirement of possession of an I.T.I. Certificate.

¶10

It is stated that the services of the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Pump Attendant on 13.09.1995. It is also argued that in the year 2014, the petitioner was called upon to declare his educational qualification, which the petitioner declared as High School. On 19.12.2017 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner alleging that the I.T.I. Certificate produced by him at the time of regular appointment was found to be forged on verification. The petitioner denied the said allegation of having submitted any ITI Certificate. No action was taken in pursuance to the show cause notice and the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner approached for payment of post retiral dues as well as pension. As the same were not paid, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7038 of 2020 which was disposed of on 06.03.2020 directing the respondents to take a decision with regard to the dues of the petitioner within two months. After passing of the said order, the petitioner was served with a fresh show cause notice dated 17.06.2020. Once again alleging that the petitioner

¶11

had produced forged I.T.I. Certificate at the time of grant of appointment. The petitioner once again denied the same as submitted that the petitioner had never submitted any certificate. Despite submission of the reply, no steps were taken for payment of retiral dues and the petitioner was informed orally that his appointment has been cancelled. Ultimately, a termination order was served upon the petitioner in a reply to the query made under the Right to Information Act. The said order is under challenge by means of the present writ petition.

¶12

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that no proceedings could have been initiated under any provision after the retirement. She further argues that even in terms of the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the CSR, no proceedings can be initiated in respect to an allegation of more than four years whereas the allegations levelled against the petitioner were related to the year 1989, thus the proceedings were contrary to the law and as such deserves to be quashed with further direction to pay the post retiral dues and the pension, to which the petitioner is entitled.

¶13

After the matter was argued, on the request of counsel for the respondents, the matter was adjourned to demonstrate as to what was the eligibility prescribed for appointment to the post of Pump Attendant in the year 1989. In response to the same,

¶14

the counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the

¶15

recommendation of Pay Commission, which certainly cannot be held to be providing the eligibility criteria which is prescribed either under the Regulations or under the Government Orders issued from time to time.

¶16

The counsel for the respondents places heavy reliance and argues that the appointment of the petitioner void ab initio and places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Cooperation of India and others versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira and other r eported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 . He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai versus State of Kerala and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 to argue that the appointments which are sought by playing fraud are a nullity and there is no requirement of observing and following the mandate of Discipline and Appeal Rules.

¶17

The counsel for the respondents also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Singh versus Savitri Devi and others in Appeal (Civil) No.8216 of 2003, decided on 09.10.2003 to argue that a fraud vitiates everything. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank versus M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Ltd., again to raise the same grounds that fraud vitiates everything. He also places reliance on a Division

¶18

Bench's Judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.465 of

¶19

2018, Dann Bahadur versus the General Manager, Jal Kal

¶20

Vibhag, Lucknow and others to argue that this Court had held that in case of fraud, there was no necessity to hold a regular enquiry.

¶21

The issues raised in the present writ petition were decided by this Court while delivering judgment in the case of Ram Lakhan versus State of U.P. and others (Writ – A No.4054 of 2023, decided on 29.05.2023) , wherein on a similar ground, this Court had decided the issue in favour of the petitioner after considering all the issues including the issue of fraud. In the present case also, the order passed against the petitioner was wholly arbitrary.

¶22

Reasoning contained in the judgment in the case of Ram Lakhan (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, on the same grounds, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 21.10.2020 is quashed with direction to the respondents to pay the retiral dues including pension to the petitioner within a period four months from today. As the petitioner has been harassed by the respondents, the conduct of the respondents needs to be deprecated and is deprecated. The petitioner has been denied his retirement benefits by passing the order of termination after retirement without any sanction of law as such the respondents

¶23

are directed to ensure the payment of arrears of pension and the other retirement dues along with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of retirement till actual payment/ realization. In addition to the same, the petitioner is also entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs.25,000 /-, which shall also be paid to the petitioner towards costs of litigation. In the event of failure to pay the amount of compliance of the directions of this Court by 01.08.2023, the petitioner would be at liberty to take action for contempt against the respondents.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed . Order Date :- 30.5.2023 KR

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramadhar Alias Ramadhar Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramadhar Alias Ramadhar Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Housing and Urban Planning and Ors.

Ramesh Singh Chauhan Vs U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Another

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. (Secondary Education), Lko. and 4 Others

Rafi-Ul-Kadar(Deceased) Thru. Legal Representative Rafat Jamal and Others Vs Smt. Noorjahan(Deceased) Thru. Legal Representative Zubair Ahmad and Others

Ram Ujagir Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Agriculture Edu.andRESEARCH and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tech. Edu. Lko and 3 Others