Disposed

Triloki Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024WRIA/5370/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought to quash orders directing recovery of alleged excess salary and to ensure pension payment without deduction. The court stayed recovery orders and directed pension payment pending further instructions regarding the petitioner's consent.

What did the court decide?

Stay of recovery from post-retirement dues and direction to pay pension strictly without deduction until further orders.

Triloki Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5370 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Triloki Yadav

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief(s):-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned letter no.- प -237/2022, dated 10.06.2024, issued by the respondent no.4 i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aharan Vitran Adhikari, on behalf of Police Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar, thereby illegally and arbitrarily directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 16, 17,482/-(Rupees sixteen lac, seventeen thousand, four hundred eighty two only) which has been obtained by him as excess salary and the impugned letter no.- चचार -2151-2023, dated 06.12.2023, issued by the respondent no.3 i.e. Assistant Account Officer, on behalf Finance Controller Finance Controller, Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarters, Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to pay pension to the petitioner regularly per month without any deduction."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner retired from the post of Head Constable on 30.04.2023 but by means of the impugned order, the recovery has been proposed from the post retiral dues of the petitioner in the name of excess payment so given to him when he was serving. He has further submitted that though no excess amount was paid to the petitioner. Even if it was the excess amount, no undertaking or consent was given by the petitioner for making recovery. He has also submitted that in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, such recovery may not be executed from any employee who retired from the post of Class-III or Class-IV.

¶11

List/put up this case on 24.07.2024 as fresh to enable the learned Standing Counsel to seek complete written instructions in the matter particularly on the point as to whether the

¶12

petitioner had given his undertaking or consent at the time of making payment of alleged excess amount.

¶13

Till the next date of listing, no recovery shall be executed from the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid impugned order and if the pension is not being paid to the petitioner, his pension shall be paid strictly, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Shravan

¶15

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

Triloki Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triloki Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Mohd. Saifi @ Samiul Haq Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Alok Giri and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Kamlesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko