Smt. Pooja vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Pooja vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection: no recovery from the writ petitioner till a fresh order is passed on her objection; petitioner to file a comprehensive representation/objection before respondent no.4 (BDO, Dhanora) by 05.12.2025, and the fourth respondent to decide it by 12.01.2026; protection conditional on compliance with the timeline.

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery/deposit could be pressed against the writ petitioner pursuant to the communication/direction dated 25.09.2025 without putting her to notice or affording an opportunity to rebut the allegations.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with directions, in view of the petitioner's allegation that adverse inputs in the communication dated 25.09.2025 were sought to be used to effectuate recovery without her knowledge.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner shall prefer a comprehensive representation titled as objection, along with a self-attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of the order passed that day, before respondent no.4, the Block Development Officer, Dhanora, District Amroha, by 5th December, 2025.

Key takeaways

On such motion, the fourth respondent shall pass an order within a period of a month, i.e., by 12.01.2026.ratio¶20
Till a fresh order is passed on the objection of the writ petitioner, no recovery shall be made from the writ petitioner.ratio¶21
The Court has not entered into the merits of the case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ – A No. 17218 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Vikas Budhwar, J., November 17, 2025): Smt. Pooja, appointed Woman Mate on 11.06.2024 in Gram Panchayat Sehalpura, Block Dhanaura, District Amroha, faced a complaint regarding her functioning; an inquiry report followed on 19.08.2025 by the District Lekhpal (MGNAREGA), Amroha to the Chief Development Officer, and on 25.09.2025 the Block Development Officer, Dhanaura communicated alleged irregularities to the Deputy Commissioner Labour Employment, Amroha, with a same-dated notice requiring deposit of the entire amount found referable to misappropriation or irregularity. Contending she was never put to notice to rebut the allegations, the petitioner approached the Court. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation titled 'objection', with a self-attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of the day's order, before respondent no.4 (BDO, Dhanora) by 05.12.2025; the fourth respondent to pass a fresh order within a month (by 12.01.2026); and directing that no recovery be made from the petitioner till then, such protection being conditional on adherence to the order's terms and timeline.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17218 of 2025

Smt. Pooja

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2 . A statement has been made by learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of documents available on record, particulary, when they are well equipped with instruction.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that she was appointed on 11.06.2024 as Woman mate in Gram Panchayat, Sehalpura, Block- Dhanaura, DistrictAmroha. However, a complaint came to be lodged against the writ petitioner regarding the functioning of the writ petitioner and on 19.08.2025 an inquiry report came to be submitted by the District Lekhpal (MGNAREGA), Amroha to Chief Development Officer, Amroha. Thereafter, on 25.09.2025, the Block Development Officer, Dhanaura, Amroha issued a communication to the Deputy Commissioner Labour Employment, Amroha mentioning the irregularities committed by the writ petitioner and on the same date, an order came to be passed on 25.09.2025 titled to be a notice requiring the writ petitioner to deposit the entire amount which was found to be referable to misappropriation or irregularity. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner has not been put to notice to rebut the allegations contained in the communication of the Block Development Officer addressed to Deputy Commissioner Labour Employment, Amroha dated 25.09.2025. He submits that fifteen days time be accorded to the writ petitioner to submit his reply to the same and order be passed.

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that whatever might be, the writ petitioner as per the report happens to have committed irregularities and thus, he is liable to pay the amount which was attributed as a loss suffered to the State. He however submits that since the writ petitioner seeks to submit

WRIA No. 17218 of 2025

2

his reply and it is always the policy of the State Government to act in transparent manner, thus the writ petitioner could be accorded opportunity.

4. I have heard submissions so made across the bar and perused the record . Apparently, a complaint stood lodged against the writ petitioner, pursuant thereto a report came to be submitted on 19.08.2025 by the District Lekhpal (MGNAREGA) Amroha to the Chief Development Officer thereafter correspondent with the Deputy Commissioner Labour Employment Amroha on 25.09.2025 and on 25.09.2025, a direction has been issued to deposit said amount. Since the writ petitioner alleged that he is completely blank in respect of communicated dated 25.09.2025 wherein adverse inputs have been pressed into service so as to effectuate recovery, thus, the writ petition stands disposed of as under:-

(a) the writ petitioner shall prefer a comprehensive representation which will be titled as objection along with a self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order passed today before the respondent no.4, the Block Development Officer Dhanora, District Amroha by 5^th December, 2025.

(b) On the said motion, the fourth respondent shall proceed to pass an order within a period of a month, to say by 12.01.2026.

(c) till a fresh order is passed on the objection of the writ petitioner, no recovery shall be made from the writ petitioner.

Needless to point out that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

It is clarified that the protection so granted shall only be available once the writ petitioner does not violate any of the terms and conditions of the order and sticks to the timeline.

November 17, 2025 Gurpreet Singh

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad