Sarla Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sarla Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection pending further orders: no further recovery from the petitioners who have completed 10 years and 11 months from superannuation; learned Standing Counsel directed to file counter affidavit; case connected with WRIT A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and others Vs. State of U. P. and Others); interim benefit liable to be recovered in accordance with law if the writ petition is dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the continued deduction from the monthly pension of a retired employee for a period of 180 months (15 years) is lawful where the commutation amount paid at retirement together with interest thereon stands fully recovered within about 131 months (10 years and 11 months), i.e., whether recovering the commuted amount over fifteen years amounts to charging interest at more than 12% per annum and unjust enrichment.

Court's answer

Since recovery is being executed from the retired employees continuously since their date of retirement, the cause of action is recurring in nature; therefore a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit is required from the opposite parties.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, until further orders no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners who have completed 10 years and 11 months from the date of their superannuation; it is made clear that if the writ petition is dismissed, the benefit granted by the interim order shall be recovered in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), interim order dated 8.1.2025 in WRIT - A No. 116 of 2025 (Sarla Verma v. State of U.P. and others). The petitioner, retired as Head Servant (Child Development Department, Govt. of U.P.) on 31.07.2012, challenged deduction from monthly pension for 180 months (15 years) although the commutation amount paid at retirement and interest thereon was stated to be fully recovered within 131 months (10 years and 11 months); counsel argued the excess period amounted to charging interest above 12% per annum and unjust enrichment, noting similar grievances before the Kerala, Punjab & Haryana and Telangana High Courts, including the interim order dated 20.11.2024 in M.D. Nazeer Ahmed & Others v. State of Telangana (WP No. 32177 of 2024). Holding the cause of action recurring in nature, the Court called for a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit from the opposite parties, connected the matter with WRIT A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and others), and directed that until further orders no further recovery be executed from petitioners who had completed 10 years and 11 months from superannuation, subject to recovery of the interim benefit in accordance with law if the writ petition is dismissed.

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 116 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sarla Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is retired employee having superannuated as Head Servant (Child Development Department Govt. of U.P. on 31.07.2012 and more than 10 years period has expired since their retirement. The petitioners are aggrieved by action on the part of opposite parties by deducting the amount from monthly pension for a period of 180 months (15 years) whereas the commutation amount paid at the time of retirement and the interest thereon is fully recovered in a period of 131 months (10 years and 11 months) or at best 11 years.

Learned counsel for petitioners has stated that the manner under which the amount of recovery has been proposed is patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and uncalled for. The aforesaid amount is being recovered from the petitioners from the date of their retirement.

Learned counsel for petitioners has submit that the commuted amount stands satisfied and adjusted within a period of ten years and 11 months and, therefore, adjusting the aforesaid amount for a period of fifteen years, amounts to charging interest at more than 12 % per annum and is therefore in the realm of unjust enrichment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that such grievance has been noticed by the various High Courts e.g. Kerala High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court and granted some interim protection, and as such, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

Attention has been drawn towards an interim order dated 20.11.2024 passed by High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in the case of M.D. Nazeer Ahmed & Others Vs. The State of Telangana & Others (Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2024) relying upon the interim order granted by various High

Courts. It is submitted that the aforesaid issue is identical with the issue of the present petitioners.

Since the recovery is being executed from the retired employees since their date of retirement and as per learned counsel for the petitioners such recovery is patently illegal and arbitrary, therefore, it appears that cause of action is recurring in nature, hence, a detailed and exhaustive counter affidavit would be required from the opposite parties.

Connect this case with WRIT A No. 5617 of 2024 (Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and others Vs. State of U. P. and Others).

In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit.

Until further orders, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners, who have completed 10 years and 11 months from the date of their superannuation. It is also made clear that in case the writ petition is dismissed, the benefit granted to the petitioners by means of the interim order shall be recovered in accordance with law.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 8.1.2025

Ravi/

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench