Quashed

Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024/6020/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed recovery orders demanding 50% of alleged loss from a superannuated employee, holding that no provision existed at the time of his retirement to initiate or continue such proceedings, and subsequent regulations lacked retrospective effect.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.01.2023 and 06.07.2024 are quashed; deductions made shall be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks.

Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52519

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6020 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 4.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.01.2023 whereby recovery has been directed from petitioner to the tune of Rs.39,30,000/- being 50% of total alleged loss caused to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.78,60,000/-. Also under challenge is appellate order dated 06.07.2024 rejecting petitioner's appeal.

¶9

It is submitted that petitioner has in fact superannuated from service on 31.03.2011 and on that date, there was no provision under Service Regulations applicable upon petitioner for initiation or continuance of enquiry against a superannuated employee of the Corporation. He has placed reliance on a judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Pradeep Agarwal v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., WRIT - A No. - 23400 of 2020.

¶10

It is also submitted that even otherwise, the impugned order has merely parroted the enquiry report without any independent application of mind to the submissions which were made by petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 4 on the basis of instructions has referred to the working manual of the

¶12

Corporation applicable upon employees in which as per paragraphs 709 and 712 as amended to incorporate paragraph 709(Gha) submits that in case proceedings are pending as on the date of superannuation of an officer/employee, the same can be continued for realization of any financial loss caused to the Corporation.

¶13

Mr. Jain however has fairly submitted that aforesaid amendment has been incorporated in pursuance of resolutions of the Board of Directors dated 31.12.2019 which does not have any retrospective application as indicated in the decision in Pradeep Agarwal(supra).

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, It is evident that as on the date of superannuation of petitioner, there was no provision for initiation or continuance of enquiry proceedings against a superannuated employee of the Corporation. Such an amendment was incorporated in the working manual only in year 2019 without any retrospective application.

¶15

The impugned order dated 30.01.2023 clearly indicates that enquiry against petitioner was initiated for the first time on 28.07.2014 and thereafter a charge sheet was issued on 03.11.2014 whereafter enquiry report dated 05.11.2015 was submitted. It is thus evident that enquiry proceedings were initiated against petitioner after more than three years of his superannuation.

¶16

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that there was no provision applicable upon employees of the corporation for initiation or continuance of enquiry against a superannuated employee, the impugned orders dated

¶17

30.01.2023 and 06.07.2024 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Any deduction made in pursuance of impugned orders shall be refunded to petitioner within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before authority concerned.

¶18

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 kvg/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Udai Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Marketing and Foreign Trade Lko and Others

Ajit Kumar Singh and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Min. of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Prayag Datt Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Newanu Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar Chaubey vs U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Lko. and Another

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others