Partly allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others v. Dhirendra Nath Rai

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024SPLAD/338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against a writ order that quashed recovery from pensionary dues and directed payment of withheld amount. Delay condoned; the payment direction based on Rafiq Masih upheld, but the appeal was partly allowed and remanded for deciding validity of the pay re-determination orders.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; payment direction upheld; remanded to Single Judge to decide validity of re-determination orders dated 16.03.2023 and 05.04.2023.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47745-DB

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 338 of 2024

¶5

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others Respondent :- Dhirendra Nath Rai

¶6

Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Mohit Johauri, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Sheshnath Bhardwaj, Advocate

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2024, the matter came up upon an

¶9

application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶10

The application seeking condonation of delay is not contested. The same is, therefore, allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶11

The appeal is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent aggrieved by the action of the appellants in ordering for recovery of certain amount from the pensionary benefits has been quashed and set aside.

¶12

The writ petition was filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 as well as order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition with all consequential service benefits.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents not to make any further recovery from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 05.04.2023 and 16.03.2023 contained in Annexure nos.1 & 2 hereinabove.

¶15

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to refund the recovered amount from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 05.04.2023 and 16.03.2023 contained in Annexure nos.1 & 2 hereinabove.

¶16

¶17

(iv) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just fit and proper in the favour of the petitioner under the circumstances of the case and cost of the writ petition."

¶18

Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties made reference to the

¶19

judgment in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and allowed the writ petition. Consequently, the orders dated 05.04.2023 and 16.03.2023 were quashed and the respondents were directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.4,66,046/- withheld or recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of two months.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the judgment dated 04.03.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge referred to the judgment in case of Rafiq Mashi (supra) and ordered for payment of the amount withheld/recovered and has also quashed the order of redetermination made by the respondents is not justified inasmuch as the case of Rafiq Mashi (supra) only deals with the aspect of the recovery and not that no re-determination at all can be made.

¶21

Submissions have been made that the aspect of re-determination as made by the appellants has not been dealt at all by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the order impugned to that extent deserves to be set aside.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent made vehement submissions that the plea pertaining to the order of re-determination being bad in law was raised along with specific grounds in this regard, to which a counter affidavit was also filed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the aspect of re-determination was not in issue and thus the order of re-

¶23

¶24

determination could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge.

¶25

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶26

The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that in the opening paragraph itself it has been indicated that the recovery of certain amount from the pensionary benefit has been made on account of wrong fixation of pay by mistake resulting in excess payment to the petitioner. Thereafter, reference to the judgment in the case of Rafiq Mashi (supra) has been made and the learned Single Judge has thereafter allowed the petition. There is apparently no discussion on the aspect as to whether the re-determination made was correct or incorrect and/or was liable to be quashed in the circumstances of the case, especially when issue of redetermination had already been initiated during the service period of the respondent.

¶27

Insofar as the directions given for making payment of the amount withheld/recovered is concerned, the said aspect is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Rafiq Mashi (supra) and to that extent no interference is required in the order impugned.

¶28

Consequently, the special appeal is partly allowed. The order impugned to the extent ordering for payment of amount withheld passed by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with. However, the aspect of validity of re-determination made needs to be determined in the writ petition. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide the aspect pertaining to re-determination made by orders dated

¶29

¶30

16.03.2023 and 05.04.2023.

¶31

Looking to the nature of the matter, it is expected that the same shall be decided with expedition.

¶32

Order Date :- 15.07.2024 Rakesh/-

¶33

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others v. Dhirendra Nath Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others v. Dhirendra Nath Rai

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

Suo-Motu- Open Manholes and Ducts Within the Muncipal Limits of Lucknow Posing a Danger to Life of vs the Muncipal Corporation of Lucknow Thru. Its Commissioner and Another

Dr. Mahendra Dev vs Hari Sharan Pandey

Ruchi Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kishore vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Chhedi Lal Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare U.P. Lko. and Others

Ankit Singh vs Union of India Thru Secy. Ministry of Railway Board , New Delhi and Others