Vimlesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko and 5 Others

Heard Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6, Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.05.2025 by virtue of which the recovery has been imposed upon the petitioner.

¶13

The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pay protection was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 05.09.2013 and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 12.08.2015, which has been challenged in the Writ Petition No. 4878(S/S) of 2015, wherein, on 21.08.2025, considering the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih(White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, an interim order was granted that the respondent-authority shall not recover the amount already paid to the petitioners by granting the benefit of pay protection. He further argued that Writ Petition 4878(S/S) of 2015 has finally been decided vide judgment and order dated 19.07.2024, whereby, the order impugned dated 12.08.2015 have been quashed and liberty has been given to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order, for those, who are continuing in service. He submitted that the petitioner is still working in the department.

¶14

He next submitted that after the aforesaid order was passed, an inquiry committee was constituted on 07.01.2025 and the inquiry officer submitted

¶15

WRIA No. 15234 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

its report, which is appended as annexure no. 11. Referring the aforesaid inquiry report, he submits that it was found that no amount is recoverable from the dues of the petitioner and even no observation is made in the inquiry report that any amount be recovered from the petitioner. He added that the order impugned has been passed without considering the inquiry report dated 07.01.2025, as there is not even a single whisper, in the order impugned, with respect to the inquiry report. He further submitted that the order dated 28.05.2025 has been passed, ignoring the true factual matrix and the grounds which have been taken, are nonest. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 28.05.2025 vitiates in the eyes of the law, thus, submission is that the same may be quashed.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondentcorporation has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that vide the interim order, passed in Writ Petition No. 4878 of 2015, it is provided that the authorities shall not recover the amount, which was already paid. He further submitted that, in fact, in the final order, it has been said that those who are working, fresh notices shall be issued to them, and fresh orders shall be passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing. He added that the present petitioner is still working and he cannot be equated to those employees, who have already been retired, therefore, submission is that there is no ambiguity in the order impugned dated 28.05.2025 and the subsequent order dated 08.07.2025.

¶19

Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, one thing which is apparent that after the final judgment and order passed on 19.07.2024 by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 4878(S/S) of 2015, the matter proceeded and the respondent corporation, constituted an inquiry committee, which submitted its report on 07.01.2025 and upon perusal of the inquiry report this Court finds that there is no adverse finding or any observation in the inquiry report, against the petitioner. This Court has also noticed from the order impugned dated 28.05.2025 that the inquiry report dated 07.01.2025 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, this Court prima facie finds that the order dated 28.05.2025 vitiates in the eyes of law, therefore, matter requires consideration.

¶20

Let detailed counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties, within period

¶21

WRIA No. 15234 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

of three weeks. A week thereafter, is given to counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶24

List thereafter.

¶25

Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 28.05.2025 and 08.07. 2025 shall remain stayed, so far as the recovery against the present petitioner is concerned.

¶26

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶27

January 12, 2026 Ram Murti

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimlesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko and 5 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandan Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prabhat Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Basic Shiksha Anubhag 2 Lko. and 5 Others

Kunau @ Salamuddin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Abhishek Verma @ Ranu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Ram Singh and Another vs Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agricultur/Technology Ayodhya