Ram Pyar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55269

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5708 of 2024

Petitioner :- Ram Pyar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

This Court had passed an order dated 29.07.2024, which reads as under:-

¶8

" 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶9

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.12.2023 and also letter dated 21.11.2023 whereby the benefit of pay, which has been given to the petitioner in the year 2004, has been directed to be recovered after his retirement.

¶10

3. The petitioner retired from the post of Sub Inspector, which is a post comes within Class-III post. Attention has been drawn towards the dictum of the Apex Court in re; State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has been held that such recovery may not be executed at the time of retirement or after retirement, if the employee is class-III or Class-IV. Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh has further submitted that at the time of making excess payment, if any, no undertaking was received from the petitioner, therefore, the dictum of the Apex Court in re; High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, would not be applicable in the present case. Further, a sum of Rs.1,03,324/- has already been recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner, so the same may be directed to be refunded to him.

¶11

4. List on 12th August, 2024 as fresh to enable the learned Standing Counsel so seek specific instructions as to whether

¶12

any undertaking was given by the petitioner at the time of receiving the benefit of pay in the year 2004 and also as to whether before passing the aforesaid impugned orders, any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not.

¶13

5. This matter may be taken up after fresh cases. "

¶14

Shri Vijay Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, has informed that no undertaking was received from the petitioner at the time of providing benefit of pay in the year 2004 and no opportunity was provided to the petitioner, but he has submitted that the benefit of pay scale, etc. was provided wrongly, therefore the authority may be permitted to correct the aforesaid mistake.

¶15

Be that as it may, since the impugned recovery has been executed against the petitioner illegally, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, passed by the opposite party no.3- Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar (annexure no.1 to the petition) and the letter dated 21.11.2023, issued by opposite party no.2- Finance Controller, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶16

The opposite parties concerned are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.1,03,324/- to the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 8 percent on the delayed payment. However, if the benefit of pay scale, etc. has wrongly been provided to the petitioner in the year 2004, as stated by Shri Vijay Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel, appropriate order to that effect may be passed by the competent authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but such exercise may be completed preferably within a period of eight weeks from the production of certified copy of this order, failing which no such action may be taken by the competent authority.

¶17

With the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed .

¶18

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Arnima

¶20

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

Ram Pyar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pyar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. U.P. Govt.Lko. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development U.P. Lko and 5 Others

Om Prakash Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P., Deptt. of Home, Lko. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. and 4 Others