Quashed

Balram Pno. No. 830560138 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lok Bhawan Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024/8119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders initiating recovery from the petitioner's retirement benefits due to lack of procedural safeguards. The court granted liberty to pass fresh orders after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 17.01.2022, 31.01.2022, and 29.09.2023 quashed; liberty granted to pass fresh orders after hearing within six weeks.

Balram Pno. No. 830560138 Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71840

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8119 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Balram Pno. No. 830560138 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lok Bhawan Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 17.01.2022 and 31.01.2022 initiating recovery from retiral benefits of petitioner allegedly on the wrong fixation of pay-scale and Grade Pay provided to petitioner with effect from 29.11.2007.

¶8

It has been submitted that a perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that the same have been passed without any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is submitted that even otherwise, the orders are against the dictum of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 inasmuch as benefits granted to petitioner in year 2007 are sought to be recovered in year 2022. It is also submitted that even otherwise petitioner holding a Class IV post, no recovery therefrom can be effected in view of dictum of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) as indicated herein above.

¶9

Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that recovery has been made pursuant to consent letter provided by petitioner.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident from impugned orders that prior to passing of the said order, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner. The aspect that the orders are against the dictum of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih(supra) is also to be considered in case the same is applicable. However, since consideration of aforesaid would require factual aspects as well, impugned orders dated 17.01.2022 and 31.01.2022, 29.09.2023 (on representation dated 21.09.2023 of the petitioner) are quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to pass fresh orders after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner in the light of decisions rendered in Rafiq Masih(supra). Aforesaid grievance shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.

¶11

In view of aforesaid the petition succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs..

¶12

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Virendra

¶14

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

Balram Pno. No. 830560138 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lok Bhawan Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Pno. No. 830560138 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lok Bhawan Lko and 2 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

Similar cases

Shubham Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation and Others

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ali Musi Raza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Head Constable Sujeet Kumar and Pno. 052412817 and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another