High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Khadag Bahadur Singh v. Superintendent Of Police (Railway)& Others - WRIT - A No. 24437 of 2000  RD-AH 14140 (17 August 2007)
Court No. 40
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 24437 OF 2000
Khadag Bahadur Singh Vs. Superintendent of Police & others
Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.
This petition has been filed seeking a mandate to the respondents not to recover Rs.24,258.50 by deducting it from his monthly salary and to pay him the already deducted amount.
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Provincial Arms Constabulary on 11.6.1975. Since he remained absent without any authorization, the services were terminated on 20.7.1983. After exhausting departmental remedies, he preferred Claim Petition no.336 of 1986 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgement and order dated 23.8.1995 allowed the claim petition and quashed the termination order holding that he would be deemed to be in continuous service and is entitled to get his pay and allowance. In furtherance of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated and his arrears etc. were paid but since leave encashment was not paid, he again approached the Tribunal through Contempt Petition No. 477 of 1996 wherein a direction was issued on 26.5.1998 for payment of leave encashment. However, the salary of January, 2000 was released after deducting Rs.1200/- from his salary and as such the petitioner made a representation dated 2.2.2000. The Superintendent of Police vide its letter dated 18.2.2000 informed him that he was wrongly paid Rs.24,258.50 which has to be recovered from his salary. He again represented his matter vide his letter dated 23.2.2000 and again the respondent no. 2 held that the petitioner was not entitled to the extra salary.
The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the directions of the Tribunal dated 26.5.1998 and the Government Order dated 29.1.1997, the deduction of the leave encashment amount already paid to the petitioner was illegal.
No doubt the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.5.1998 had directed for payment of leave encashment to the petitioner and the Government Order dated 29.1.1997 also reiterates that leave encashment should be paid as consequential benefits in the case of reinstatement of the incumbent. But, a perusal of the two orders dated 18.2.200 and 26.2.2000 shows that the deducted amount was extra salary. The State Government vide a Government Order dated 7.12.1979 decided to pay honorarium equivalent to one month's salary for each completed financial year to non-gazetted police officers and men who worked during Gazetted holidays, Sundays and second Saturdays. Admittedly, the petitioner did not work during those period and as such, under the Government Order, he was not entitled to the said honorarium which is neither in the nature of allowance nor salary. In fact, the stand of the petitioner had already been examined by the respondent no. 1 while passing the two orders dated 18.2.2000 and 26.2.2000, accordingly, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.