Vijai Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12752 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijay Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

This Court on noticing the repeated and regular order being passed by various competent authorities on the basis of the recommendations of the Financial Controller of the Police Headquarters have sought to recover the excess amount paid to the police personnel subsequent to the retirement.

¶8

It is in the circumstances, when there were overwhelming cases coming before this Court that this Court had called upon senior officials of the Police Department as well as State authorities to rectify the manner in which the salaries are disbursed and the various allowances are granted. The respondents very fairly conceded the error which had occurred in the department and had undertaken to rectify the same, which is recorded in the order dated 29.08.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 5238 of 2022, which reads as under:-

¶9

"1. Heard Sri Nirbhaya Singh Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State.

¶10

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st January, 2022 passed by Superintendent of Police, Kheri whereby excess amount of salary given to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2008 has been sought to be recovered after his retirement.

¶11

3. It is noticed that the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable and attained the age of superannuation non 30th November, 2021. Immediately prior to his retirement in compliance of the government order dated 15.12.2001 salary given to him during his service period was revisited and it was found that he was granted wrong pay scale with effect from 1st July, 2008 for Rs.14,430/- while he was entitled to only

¶12

Rs.13710/-.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case clearly falls within the four ambits of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 and submits that on wrong fixation of salary no such recovery can be made from his post retiral dues.

¶14

5. This Court has noticed that the matters pertaining to Police Department are being filed regularly where the police officer has received enhanced salary and only on the eve of his retirement it is noticed taht he is receiving higher salary on wrong fixation of his pay which period mostly runs between 10 to 20 years. Such recovery orders are issued only after his retirement. Such review exercise is never undertaken during currency of his service causing huge loss to the State exchequer where firstly the pay is wrongly fixed and secondly the employee receives such largess for which he is not entitled for decades together and only on the eve of the retirement as per the Government Order dated 15.12.2001 the matter is revisited and recovery orders are only passed post his retirement disabling the State from recovering excess amount paid to him in light of the judicial pronouncements in this regard.

¶15

6. Let affidavits be filed by respondent No.s 1 and 2 within next two weeks in this regard clearly informing this Court as to why review/audit exercise is not undertaken by the State Government regarding fixation of salaries of the police officers and why review is undertaken only 10 months prior to retirement and even recovery orders are not passed prior to retirement.

¶16

7. List this case on 16th September, 2022 in top ten cases.

¶17

8. Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 31.1.2022 passed by respondent No.5 (contained in Annxure No.1 to the writ petition), shall remain stayed."

¶18

In the present petition again, the similar controversy has arisen where the payment of leave encashment made to the petitioner subsequent to his retirement has been held to be arbitrary and on the basis of the wrong fixation of salary an amount of Rs.5,88,842/- has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner. It is further noticed that neither any opportunity of hearing was given prior passing of the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 nor is there any reasoning to indicate as to how the error has occurred in fixation of the basic salary of the petitioner.

¶19

Let a personal affidavit be filed by the Finance Controller of

¶20

the Police Headquarters i.e., respondent no. 3 to indicate as to under which provision does he have any authority to scrutinize the entire salary structure and financial benefits given to the employees of the Police Department on the eve of the retirement despite clear directions that such error if any firstly should not occur as all these benefits are given only after concurrence of the Finance Controller/Finance Department and the same should be rectified immediately.

¶21

Let the said affidavit be filed within next ten days.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel undertakes to communicate this order forthwith the authority concerned.

¶23

List this case on 27.01.2025 in top ten cases.

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Virendra

¶26

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

Vijai Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijai Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Narendra Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush ANUBHAG-1 Lko. and 2 Others

Kaushal Kishore Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Mining and Mineral Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Puttu Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chiefprin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Sushila Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Naushad Khan Pno 952701156 and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others