Allowed

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022CRLP/4909/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court for Telangana dealt with a writ petition challenging a recovery order for Rs. 7,00,742 treated as pension fraud. The court held that recovery could not be ordered solely on the basis of an unsatisfactory reply without any enquiry or consideration of the pending criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 14-2-2006 set aside; respondents directed to follow prescribed procedure for recovery of amount.

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD} ' - (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA}

¶5

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 4556oF 2006}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohd^{lbrahim Khaleel,, S/o' Lqte.} !g!rd..^{Alrdul Khader' RetiredGovt'} Employee^{ruo. n.No]Ili-o1oll55, r'r'slNagar' Road No'1'Banjara Hills'} Hyderabad.

¶8

Business,^{R/o. H'No.18-2-3511'}

¶9

1. tvlohd Asfaq,^{S/o. MohdKhaia}

¶10

ChandraYangutta, HYderabad'

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Mandal^{Revenue Officer, Shaik Pet Mandal'havingOffice at Banjara} Hills. Hvderabad

¶14

2 i;i;i ijit;;i;;^{%nsionPavment office' M J Road' HvderabadLspor{oeNrs}

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitution of Indiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tiJuitiO"it filedtherewith'the High Court may.be} a writ^{particularlv in the natureof Writ of} pleased to pass an order,'Oiif"" "i Ivtandamus declaring^{tnat tie"iiliugn"Jnori"LoJ the iespondent-2videNotice} No. K./A1/8022lJDlPPot;o;;5-05-Et'^{14-2-2006' is illegal' arbitrarv'andin} ;i;i"il;; oiFiiipr"t^{ot r'laiuiat justice and the same mavbe set aside'}

¶16

WPM P. NO:^{5751oF 2006}

¶17

Petition under^{Section'1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{fiteo in supiort oitnu p"iiti#, Ir'".u'gr'Court may be q1991^dto} idil ;;^;pe|.ation "i ;;;;;";ifu;^{uio" no' K'ti|t8o22tro/PPo/2005-06dt} 14-2-2006,^{issued by nesp'onOentNJ 2, pending disposalof the writ petition'}

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR FINANCE& PLANNING}

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISHCHANDRASIIARMA}

¶23

WRIT PETITION^{No.4556 of 2006}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petitioners^{before this Court have filed this writ} petition being aggrieved^{by the order dated 14'02'2006} passed by the Joint^{Director, Pension Payment Office,} Hyderabad, directing^{recovery ofRs'7 ,0O,742} l-^from Mohd. Ashfaque.

¶26

The undisputed facts of^{the case reveal that a} pension fraud has taken^{place in the State and the fraud} was allegedly committed^{byMohd. Ibrahim Khaleei,} Controller in Barkatpura^{Bus Depot, along with his} nephew Mohd. Ashfaque.^{A criminalcase was registered} against both of them^{for the offences punishable under} Sections 4Lg, 42O,^{468, 471 read with 34 IPC in Crime} No.653 of 2001^{on the allegation of forging documentsand} withdrawing^{pensions of variouspensioners'Earlier also} writ petitions were^{preferred i.e., W.P.Nos.5939and 14230} of 2OO4 and this Court^{on 18.08.2004 has allowed the writ}

¶27

¶28

petitions and the relevant portion of the common order passed in the said writ petitions is reproduced as under:-

¶29

"ln view of the same, proceedings issued under the Act cannot be sustainable and the same are accordingly set aside. The properties, if any, attached pursuant to the impugned notices shall be continued in attachment until the amounts misappropriated by the petitioners are determined. The 2'a respondent is at liberty to issue notice to the petitioners intimating the amounts misappropriated by them, and after giving opportunity can pass appropriate orders holding them liable for the same. On frxing the liability it is always open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioners under the Act."

¶30

Thereafter, a show cause notice was given to Mohd. Ashfaque and after observing that his reply is not satisfactory, recovery has been ordered. No enquiry of any kind has taken place in the matter, nor has the outcome of the criminal case been informed to this Court. The recovery has been ordered solely on the basis of the statement of Mohd. Ashfaque recorded by the police at P.S.Banjara Hills.

¶31

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, by simply observing that the reply is not satisfactory the

¶32

1 )

¶33

¶34

respondents cannot recover the amount in the manner and method it has been done.

¶35

In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order in respect of recovery is set aside. However, the respondents shall be free to follow the procedure prescribed under the law for recovery of the amount.

¶36

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶38

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaik Pet Mandal,, Having Office at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Joint Director, Pension Payment Office, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 4. Two CCs to the GP for Finance & Planning, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two C.D. Copies.

¶46

One Spare Copy. I\1RC SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610412022

ORDER

i:-i!- S14
+
c
Q
16 lu[ 2tj?1

¶52

WP.No.4556^{of 2006}

¶53

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Ayub Pasha, Secunderabad Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

V. Seetamahalaxmi, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

B.Yadaiah , P.Nagabhushanam, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

B.Anuna Kumari Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

K. Sathaiah Vs Korpuri Saritha

Smt. Magdaleena Vs v. Anthony Reddy