Disposed

Lal Bihari Gupta v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025WRIA/19281/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery of excess salary paid to him. Court found no prior hearing was given, violating natural justice. Writ petition disposed with directions for show-cause notice, reply, and speaking order within one month; no recovery till final decision.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted for show-cause notice, reply, and speaking order within one month; no recovery till final decision.

Lal Bihari Gupta Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36358

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19281 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Lal Bihari Gupta Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Sharan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Om

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

By the impugned order the excess salary paid to the petitioner is sought to be recovered.

¶7

According to the petitioner the salary had been correctly fixed and he was not given any opportunity prior to the impugned order. The impugned order visits the petitioner with penal consequences.

¶8

Shri Pranav Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to impugned order.

¶9

Admittedly the impugned order visits the petitioner with penal consequences.

¶10

Shri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pranav Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondent agree that a post decisional hearing would subserve the ends of justice.

¶11

It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are

¶12

not cast in any strait jacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases (See: Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others , reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519) .

¶13

In view of the facts of the case and position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice. Matter is remitted to the respondent no. 4 with the following directions:

¶14

I. The respondent no. 4 shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding incorrect fixation of salary.

¶15

II. The petitioner shall tender a reply to the same.

¶16

III. The respondent no. 4 shall decide the controversy by a speaking order within a period of one month.

¶17

IV. The petitioner shall be paid his salary as determined in the impugned order. However, no recovery of excess salary shall be made till the final decision is taken.

¶18

V. The impugned order shall abide by the final order passed in pursuance to the above directions.

¶19

VI. The petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings.

¶20

With the above directions the writ petition is disposed

¶21

of finally.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Dhananjai

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lal Bihari Gupta v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bihari Gupta v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases