Prabhat Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 11 of 2024

¶3

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Sarvajanik Udyam, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and another

¶7

Secretariat, Lucknow and an	other .....	Respon	dent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Dr. Manoj Kumar D Kumar Singh, Anjuli Mishra Sushama Ram Zafar Ali Rizvi, Vijay Vi	ubey, Sriv Sagar, kram	Rajesh astava, Syed.
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: V.P. Nag (A.C.S.C.)

¶8

Chief Justice's Court

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

This appeal is directed against order dated 08.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 17111 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant (in short, 'appellant') has been dismissed.

¶11

The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 27.05.2016 whereby the directions were issued for recovery of the amount paid in excess towards House Rent Allowance ('HRA') on the ground that the husband and wife were the government servants and were staying in the same accommodation.

¶12

The order was passed by the respondents on account of issuance of a Government Order dated 11.02.2015, whereby a decision was taken that if both the husband and wife were in service and were staying in one house (on rent or own accommodation), both would be entitled to the payment of HRA based on their entitlement. Further indications were made that the order would be applicable from the date of the Government Order and the previous matters shall not be reviewed.

¶13

In the order dated 27.05.2016, it was indicated that as the appellant had received HRA for the period 25.05.1987 till 30.06.1999 and from

¶14

SPLA No. 11 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

01.02.2006 till 10.02.2015, the same amounts to Rs. 1,97,462.24 which was recoverable and that the same shall be recovered at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- for 9 months and balance amount of Rs. 17,462/- in the 10th month.

¶17

When the petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 26.07.2016, directions were issued that no recovery from the appellant shall be made pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2016. Whereafter, on appellant attaining the age of superannuation, a sum of Rs. 1,57,462/- was withheld from the gratuity as, by then, Rs. 40,000/- had already been recovered.

¶18

When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 08.12.2023, submission was made on behalf of the appellant with reference to the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Krishna Swaroop Anandi Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-A No. 54717 of 2000, decided on 10.03.2011, that the payment made to the appellant cannot be recovered, at least till the date the notice was issued. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the plea raised in this regard and dismissed the writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that appellant was issued a notice on 20.07.2002 pointing out the fact that in view of the existing Government Order, the appellant was not entitled for payment of HRA. Apparently, based on the said order, for a period between 01.07.1999 to 31.01.2006, the appellant was not paid the HRA, however, from 01.02.2006, the same was again paid till 10.02.2015.

¶20

Submissions were made that the appellant had no role to play in getting the amount in this regard and therefore, the amount paid could not be recovered.

¶21

Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.

¶22

We have considered the submissions made and perused the material available on record.

¶23

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Krishna Swaroop Anandi ( supra), in similar circumstances, had come to the

¶24

SPLA No. 11 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

following conclusion:-

¶27

"Now remains other part of the order dated 10th November, 2000 by which direction has been issued for recovery of house rent allowance of the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner. From the facts, which have been brought on the record, it is clear that it was the respondents, who have paid the house rent allowance to the petitioner after receiving a representation from the petitioner for payment of house rent allowance and the payment of house rent allowance was directed to be stopped only by the order dated 10th November, 2000. In facts of the present case, the petitioner cannot be said to have any role for payment of house rent allowance to him in addition to the house rent allowance paid to the petitioner's wife, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where the house rent allowance already paid to the petitioner be recovered. Thus the part of the order dated 10th November, 2000 by which direction has been issued for taking steps for recovery of the house rent allowance already paid is set-aside, but the rest of the order is maintained."

¶28

Apparently, learned Single Judge did not deal with the judgment and only indicated that the same would not come to the aid of the appellant as the same did not lay down any binding precedent. There was nothing in the order of the Division Bench which had confined the order to the said case and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment was not applicable.

¶29

The case of the appellant is on a better footing, inasmuch as the respondents, despite issuing notice in the year 2002 in this regard, started paying the amount from 01.02.2006. No explanation has been indicated in response to the writ petition alleging any role of the appellant in the respondents making payment to the appellant and therefore, it cannot be said that the amount of the HRA was paid to the appellant on account of his role against the Government Order.

¶30

Besides the above, the indications made in the order dated 11.02.2015 that the previous matters shall not be reviewed, has to be read in context and cannot be read only with a view that those who were not being paid shall not be paid. The same has to be read wherein those who have been paid without there being any role, the same shall not be

SPLA No. 11 of 2024

4

reviewed/recovered.

In view of the above fact situation, following the order in the case of Dr. Krishna Swaroop Anandi ( supra), the recovery ordered from the appellant, cannot be sustained.

¶35

Consequently, the appeal is allowed . The order dated 27.05.2016 passed by the respondents ordering recovery and that of the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2023 are set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 40,000/- recovered from the appellant and release the amount of Rs. 1,57,462/- withheld from the gratuity of the appellant.

¶36

The payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. On failure to make payment, the same would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the end of six weeks till the date the amount is paid to the appellant.

¶37

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶38

May 18, 2026 Asheesh/AHA

¶39

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

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sarvajankik Udyam Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

Akhilesh Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt. of Environment,Forest and Climate Change,Lko.and 6 Others

Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Kanpur and 2 Others vs Dr. Rudra Pratap Narayan Singh and 2 Others

Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekar Azad University of Agriculture and Tech. Kanpur and 2 Others vs Dr. Mahak Singh and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush U.P. Lko. and Others vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another vs Dr. Suman Raheja and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Mohd. Nafees