Disposed¶13

Madan Mohan Mani v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2026WRIA/1898/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-superannuation charge sheet; CPF payment after retirement; suspension order dated 22.12.2022; gratuity and leave encashment withheld pending departmental proceedings; duplicate postal receipt for dispatch; direction for counter affidavit; interim relief; service law; Writ-A; Allahabad High Court; Vikas Budhwar, J.; listed 12.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to payment of CPF amount as provided in the communication dated 31.12.2025; respondent no.2 directed to file counter affidavit disclosing the dates of framing, approval and dispatch of the charges and to produce the record; case to be put up fresh on 12.03.2026 with liberty for out-of-turn mention. ¶13

Madan Mohan Mani vs Union of India and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet against the petitioner was framed, approved and dispatched only after his superannuation on 31.12.2025, in view of the contention that the same postal receipt was used as for the dispatch of the suspension order. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Shri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2, is directed to file a counter affidavit bringing on record and disclosing the related documents showing the dates on which the charges were framed, approved and dispatched to the writ petitioner, and the record is to be produced on the next date.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner shall be entitled to payment of the CPF amount as provided in the communication dated 31.12.2025.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.), interim order in WRIT - A No. 1898 of 2026 (Madan Mohan Mani v. Union of India and another): The petitioner, placed under suspension on 22.12.2022 under a show cause notice, tendered his reply on 29.12.2025 and superannuated on 31.12.2025; the order/communication of 31.12.2025 recited his admissibility to CPF but deferred leave encashment and gratuity until conclusion of the departmental proceedings / revocation of suspension. Contending that a charge sheet was prepared on 23.12.2025, i.e., after superannuation, and that the same postal receipt was used as for the dispatch of the suspension order, the Court directed Shri Nikhil Pandey, counsel for respondent no.2, to file a counter affidavit disclosing the dates on which the charges were framed, approved and dispatched, and to produce the record on the next date. The Court directed that the writ petitioner 'shall entitle to payment of CPF amount as provided in the communication dated 31.12.2025'. The case was put up fresh on 12.03.2026 with liberty for out-of-turn mention.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1898 of 2026

Madan Mohan Mani

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Nikhil Pandey

¶8

Court No. - 33

¶9

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.12.2022 the said order was accompanied with show cause notice. The writ petitioner tendered its reply on 29.12.2025 and thereafter, the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2025 and in the order itself, it was recited that the writ petitioner is to be admissible to the payment of CPF and so far as the leave encashment and gratuity is concerned, the same would be post conclusion of the departmental proceedings/revocation of the suspension order. However, according to the writ petitioner now a charge sheet said to be prepared on 23.12.2025 which was post superannuation of the writ petitioner. While inviting the attention towards page 9 of the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is contended that the same postal receipt has been used which is referable to the dispatch shown of the suspension order.

¶11

Be that as it may be, Shri Nikhil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is directed to file counter affidavit bringing on record and disclosing the related documents showing the date on which the charges took framed, approved, while dispatched to the writ petitioner. On the next date also record be also produced.

¶12