Allowed

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024SPLA/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against an order extending time to determine if House Rent Allowance payments made contrary to government policy were discriminatory. Court directed investigation into potential discrimination and recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directed Standing Counsel to verify discriminatory treatment and probe payments in other departments for recovery.

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 11 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Anjuli Srivastava,Syed. Zafar Ali Rizvi,Vijay Vikram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Issues pricking the conscience of this Court come to our notice quite often.

¶7

In the present case House Rent Allowance (HRA) payable to a couple in government service prior to 11.02.2015 was admissible to either of the spouses living together.

¶8

This rule has however come to be altered to the advantage of the married couple by means of government order dated 11.02.2015.

¶9

In the case at hand both the appellant and his wife were in service when HRA was payable as per the standing orders of the government to anyone of the spouse having higher entitlement. A notice came to be issued to the appellant way back on 20.07.2002 whereby the HRA paid to him as well as his wife was found contrary to the government policy, thus he was called upon to show cause failing which the notice issued was to be deemed as an order.

¶10

The appellant submitted his reply on 23.07.2002 and placing reliance upon an interim order passed in Writ Petition No.1455 (S/B) of 2017 on 16.12.1997, prayed that he being entitled to the benefit of order, may be continued with the payment of HRA. The order dated 16.12.1997 to which reference was

¶11

¶12

made did not relate to him and was rather passed in favour of someone else. The authorities also did not choose to proceed in pursuance of the deemed order passed on 20.07.2002 until a fresh office memorandum was issued on 27.05.2016 whereby the faulty payment of HRA released in favour of the appellant up to the date of issuance of government order dated 11.02.2015 was sought to be recovered. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the office memorandum dated 27.05.2016 filed Writ-A No. 17111 of 2016 wherein the following order was passed by this Court on 26.07.2016.

¶13

“Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.

¶15

Two weeks’ time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List the case after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶17

In the meantime, it is provided that no recovery from the petitioner shall be made pursuant to the impugned order dated 27.05.2016.”

¶18

This interim order operated until the decision of writ petition by order dated 08.12.2023 as has been impugned here in this special appeal.

¶19

The sum and substance of the controversy is as to whether the HRA paid to the employees contrary to the government policy which was modified by government order dated 11.2.2015 has been implemented without any discrimination or not.

¶20

The petitioner in paragraph-3 of the writ petition has clearly pointed out certain names and it is averred that some other

¶21

¶22

couples in government service have also been extended the benefit of HRA on equal basis of which the objection was raised against him by show cause notice dated 20.7.2002.

¶23

Government action cannot be discriminatory in respect of the policy matters.

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel is hereby directed to obtain complete instructions as to whether there was any discriminatory treatment between the petitioner and the employees whose names have been pointed out in paragraph-3 of the writ petition or not.

¶25

The Court would equally show concern as to whether any such payments have been made in other departments or Corporations where measures of recovery at par with the case at hand may be required. Thus the matter may be screened and probed in respect of all such couples who are in government service so that necessary action and recovery is made in the light of policy decision applicable in this behalf.

¶26

List this case on 5.2.2024 in the list of fresh cases when the learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions and apprise the Court of the necessary steps as may be required of the situation at hand.

¶27

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Fahim/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow and Others vs Satya Sharan Singh

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4 Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another vs Vinod Kumar Shukla

Smt. Kamla Devi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lucknow and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nager Vikas Anubhag 3 Lko. and Another vs Vijai Singh Chauhan and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Legal Remembrancer, Deptt. of Law U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Sukh Vir Singh and 2 Others

State Project Director U.P. Education for All Projects Council Lko. and Another vs Manju Saxena and Others