Disposed¶11

Nagendra Kumar Tiwari v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director, Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/1428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 1428 of 2024; Nagendra Kumar Tiwari v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban); Abdul Moin, J.; decided 23.10.2024; retiral dues; withholding of retiral dues; punishment order dated 27.09.2024; deduction of Rs. 1,68,465/-; departmental charge sheet; disciplinary proceedings; reservation of right to pass separate order; payment within four weeks; interest as per rules; kidney patient dialysis; writ disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to pay the petitioner's retiral dues after deducting Rs. 1,68,465/- (as per punishment order dated 27.09.2024), within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; admissibility of interest, if any, to be considered as per rules. ¶11

Nagendra Kumar Tiwari Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director, Lucknow and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents could withhold the petitioner's entire retiral dues on the ground that they have reserved the right to pass a separate order in case of any increase in liability, or whether the retiral dues are payable after deducting Rs. 1,68,465/- imposed by the punishment order dated 27.09.2024.

¶8

Court's answer

Merely because the respondents have reserved the right of passing a separate order (in case of any increase in liability), that cannot be a licence or authority to withhold the petitioner's entire retiral dues, which are now payable after adjustment of Rs. 1,68,465/-.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to pay the petitioner's retiral dues after deducting Rs. 1,68,465/- as per the punishment order dated 27.09.2024.

¶11

Key takeaways

The retiral dues (after deduction) shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶12
The admissibility of interest, if any, on the retiral dues shall be considered as per rules.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - A No. 1428 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 5; Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.; Order Date 23.10.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:71370) disposed of. The petitioner, a kidney patient undergoing dialysis twice a week, who had challenged the entire disciplinary proceedings arising from a departmental charge sheet, did not press the challenge to the punishment order dated 27.09.2024 (imposing a deduction of Rs. 1,68,465/-) at that stage and sought payment of his remaining retiral dues. Held: the respondents' mere reservation of the right to pass a separate order in case of any increase in liability is not a licence or authority to withhold the petitioner's entire retiral dues, which are payable after adjustment of Rs. 1,68,465/-. The competent authority (U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban)) was directed to pay the retiral dues after the said deduction within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; admissibility of interest, if any, to be considered as per rules.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71370

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1428 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director, Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain,Umesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although she has challenged the entire disciplinary proceedings arising from the departmental charge sheet and subsequent thereto, even the punishment order dated 27.09.2024 has been issued against the petitioner yet considering that the petitioner is a Kidney patient and dialysis is going on which is conducted twice a week as such, the petitioner does not intend to challenge the punishment order at this stage and prays that the respondents may pay the other retiral dues to which the petitioner is entitled after deducting an amount of Rs. 1,68,465/- as has been imposed by means of the punishment order dated 27.09.2024. It is further prayed that the aforesaid amount be directed to be paid expeditiously.

¶9

Responding to that, Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondents admits that the punishment order dated 27.09.2024 has been passed against the petitioner but states that the said order itself indicates that in case any increase in the liability against the petitioner, a separate order would be passed in this regard.

¶10

Merely because the respondents have reserved the right of passing of separate order that cannot be a license or any authority to withhold the entire retiral dues of the petitioner which are now payable after adjustment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,68,465/-

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to pay the retiral dues of the petitioner to which the petitioner is entitled after deducting an amount of Rs. 1,68,465/- as per punishment order dated 27.09.2024.

¶12

Let the aforesaid amount be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

The admissibility of interest, if any, would also be considered as per rules.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Pachhere/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nagendra Kumar Tiwari v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director, Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Kumar Tiwari v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director, Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chinta Haran Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dugdha Vikas, Lko and 2 Others

Smt. Pranpati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Sarita Mishra @ Sarita Devi and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Women and Child Development and 5 Others

Bakhshish Hasnain and Another vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Chandrabali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Higher Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Gyan Prakash and Others Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication and 2 Others