Malti Devi Vs Managing Director, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21393

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1409 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Malti Devi

¶5

Respondent :- Managing Director, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Mohan Bose,Shriyangi Bose Counsel for Respondent :- Ayush Chaudhary

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Man Mohan Bose, Advocate assisted by Ms. Shriyangi Bose, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶8

Short counter filed on behalf of opposite party and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner are taken on record.

¶9

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite party for release of post retiral benefits due to petitioner's husband Late Prem Narain, who is said to have passed away on 12.11.2020.

¶10

It has been submitted that petitioner's husband superannuated from service on 30.09.2016 from the post of Manager with the Consumer Cooperative Society whereafter, he made several representations for payment of his retiral benefits but had to file Writ Petition No.8345 (S/S) of 2018 for the said benefits. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2018, granting liberty to opposite parties to consider petitioner's grievance within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶11

It is submitted that even thereafter the post retiral benefits

¶12

have not been paid to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite party has on the other hand submitted that in pursuance of directions issued by this Court, order dated 04.06.2018 had been passed rejecting petitioner's representation whereafter another order dated 19.02.2024 has also been passed against the petitioner but neither of the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner and in fact there is no mention with regard to said orders in the writ petition which amounts to concealment of fact. It has been submitted that during lifetime of petitioner's husband, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 16.09.2016 whereafter a charge sheet was issued to him on 28.03.2017 to which he submitted his reply on 26.01.2018 and in the inquiry report dated 28.05.2018, petitioner's husband was found guilty of causing financial harm to the tune of Rs. 86.89 lakhs to the Department. A show cause notice was thereafter issued dated 01.06.2018 requiring the delinquent employee to file his reply but an opportunity of personal hearing had to be postponed on several occasions due to uncooperative attitude of the delinquent and during the aforesaid proceedings, he had filed Writ Petition No.8345 (S/S) of 2018, which was disposed of.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal submitted that a perusal of the order dated 04.06.2018 as well as 19.02.2024 will make it evident that the same are not required to be challenged inasmuch as the opposite parties in the aforesaid letters clearly admit that no final orders were passed against the petitioner's late husband in the disciplinary inquiry. He has placed reliance on a judgement rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tiwari Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board & Others, Civil Appeal No.5848-49 of 2014 to buttress

¶15

his submission.

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that while disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner's late husband during his service tenure, no final orders thereupon were ever passed. Only the inquiry report was submitted whereafter a show cause notice was issued to him but the delinquent employee passed away before any final orders could be passed in the aforesaid proceedings.

¶17

Since petitioner's case has not been rejected on merits vide orders dated 04.06.2018 and 19.02.2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid orders does not require any challenge.

¶18

It is not the case of opposite parties that even thereafter any punishment order has been passed against the delinquent employee. No provision in the Service Rules have been indicated whereby now any final orders can be passed in the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings even after demise of the delinquent employee.

¶19

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tiwari ( supra ) has clearly held as follows :-

¶20

"9. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding 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 get full retiral benefits."

¶21

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgement in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that due to demise of petitioner's late husband during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the said proceedings had lapsed and

¶22

therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the full retiral benefits as were due to her late husband.

¶23

In view of aforesaid, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the sole opposite party i.e. Managing Director, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Lucknow to release all the post retiral benefits due to petitioner's late husband as well as due to her upon his demise within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

¶24

Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed .

¶25

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Malti Devi v. Managing Director, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malti Devi v. Managing Director, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Asmat Parveen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Shama Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Minority Welfare and Wakf ANUBHAG-3, Lucknow and 6 Others

Anurag Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Work Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhir Kant Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others