Dismissed¶17

Plant Protection Officer Hardoi and Anr. v. Rameshwar Singh

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024SPLAD/571/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gratuity recovery from retired employee; Regulation 351-A Civil Service Regulations; post-retirement recovery without opportunity of hearing has no legal sanction; gratuity not stoppable for other outstanding dues; writ petition allowed by Single Judge; special appeal dismissed; 96 days delay condoned; Plant Protection Officer Hardoi v. Rameshwar Singh; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:69393-DB; order dated 16.01.2006; Rs. 72,727/-.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the learned Single Judge's order dated 16.01.2006 setting aside the recovery of Rs. 72,727/- from the respondent's gratuity stands upheld. ¶17

Plant Protection Officer Hardoi and Anr. Vs Rameshwar Singh — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69393-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 571 of 2007

¶4

Appellant :- Plant Protection Officer Hardoi And Anr. Respondent :- Rameshwar Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Tushar Verma, Additional Chief Standing Counsel

¶5

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

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent aggrieved of the action of the appellants in denying the amount of gratuity has been set aside.

¶7

The appeal is barred by 96 days.

¶8

No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶9

For the reasons indicated in the application supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits of the appeal.

¶11

The writ petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved of the action of the appellants herein in seeking to recover a sum of Rs.72,727/- from the amount of gratuity payable to him post retirement.

¶12

After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that as no action was initiated by the State against the respondent under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations (for short, 'Regulations'), the amount is sought to be recovered could not have been recovered from the gratuity of the respondent. The learned Single Judge also came to the

¶13

conclusion that the amount of gratuity cannot be stopped due to other outstanding dues against the employee and consequently set aside the order impugned.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the present was not a case of recovery but the same was a case of set off as order was passed to the tune of Rs.72,727/- against the respondent on account of the fact that post his retirement he did not hand over the charge for over 3 years and as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

¶15

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

¶16

The order passed by the appellant imposing a recovery of Rs.72,727/-, admittedly has been passed after the retirement of the employee. The said action could only be taken under Regulation 351-A of the Regulations and admittedly no such procedure was adopted by the appellants. Even while imposing the amount of Rs.72,727/-, apparently, no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the respondent and in view thereof, the recovery sought to be made, has no legal sanction.

¶17

Consequently, in view thereof, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Rakesh/-

¶20

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

Plant Protection Officer Hardoi and Anr. v. Rameshwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Plant Protection Officer Hardoi and Anr. v. Rameshwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin, Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko and 6 Others

Ajay Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. and 2 Others

Indrajeet Singh vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava and 15 Others

Vijay Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Others

Smt. Poonam Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Vijay Bahadur Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lko. and Others