Allowed

Krishna Gopal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024/706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders deducting 10% pension and denying suspension salary. Court held orders violated Regulation 351A as Governor's sanction was absent. Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 11.10.2023 and 04.12.2023 dated by the respondent no. 4 are hereby quashed.

Krishna Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 706 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishna Gopal

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Priya Srivastava,Hemendra Pratap

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶8

With the consent of the parties, the matter is decided finally at the admission stage.

¶9

This Court has passed the detailed interim order dated 1.2.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow:

¶10

" Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the orders dated 11.10.2023 and 04.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4-Engineer in Chief, (Design and Research) Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 by which 10% of pension of the petitioner has been deducted and order for recovery of Rs. 9.33 lakh from the post retiral dues of the petitioner and by order dated 04.12.2023 the salary for the period during which the petitioner was placed under Suspension has been denied.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is in contravention of Rule 351 A of the Civil Services Regulation as only the Governor himself reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it whereas no such order by the Governor or his behalf has been passed prior to passing of the impugned order dated 11.10.2023.

¶13

It is further submitted that prior to passing of the final orders no consultation was taken from Public Service Commission, U.P. as per Article 351 A (c).

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three days

¶15

time to seek instructions in the matter regarding as to whether compliance of Article 351 has been made or not prior to passing of the impugned orders.

¶16

List this case on 5th of February, 2024, as fresh. "

¶17

Instructions have been received by the learned Standing Counsel from Engineer-in-Chief, Lucknow, it is taken on record.

¶18

In compliance of the order dated 1.2.2024 the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from the Engineerin-Chief, Lucknow dated 5.2.2024 has submitted that for continuation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner an approval was taken from the Governor but he has very fairly submitted that the impugned punishment order 11.10.2023 has not been passed under Regulation 351 A of the Civil Service Regulation.

¶19

The Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulation, which provides as under:

¶20

"351 (A) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by mis-conduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that-

¶21

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment-

¶22

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor,

¶23

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.

¶24

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of

¶25

dismissal from service may be made.

¶26

(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), and

¶27

(c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before final orders are passed.

¶28

Explanation- For the purposes of this article-

¶29

(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and

¶30

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted:

¶31

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court. "

¶32

The perusal of the statutory provision clearly provides that the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, whereas in the present case the deduction of 10% pension from the petitioner permanently with recovery of Rs.9.33 Lac has been passed by the Chief Engineer / Head of the department and not passed under Regulation 351A by the Governor on his/ her behalf.

¶33

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

¶34

The impugned orders dated 11.10.2023 & 04.12.2023 are hereby quashed.

¶35

Order Date :- 6.2.2024

¶36

S. Kumar

¶37

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

Krishna Gopal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Gopal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Suman Lata Mishra Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. and O

Amarjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jail Administration / Reforms, U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Its Postmaster General, Lucknow Region, Lucknow and Another

Samar Bahadur Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. and Others

Anuj Kumar Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Thru. Registrar General and 2 Others

Berojgar Audyogik Kalyan Samiti Thru. Its Authorized Person Awdhesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Lko. and 5 Others