High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Raghuveer Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 41605 of 2006  RD-AH 17157 (30 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 36
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41605 of 2006
Ram Raghuveer Gupta Versus State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
The case of the petitioner is that on 31.8.1994, he retired from service as Cooperative Supervisor of the Cooperative Federation Authority (PCU). The contention is that even after more than a decade of his retirement, his retiral dues have not been paid and that now by an order dated 10.5.2006, it has been stated that for certain lapses having been allegedly committed by the petitioner in the year 1993, the said retiral dues cannot be paid. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.5.2006 this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a further prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his entire retiral dues along with interest.
I have heard Sri S.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondent no.1 and Sri K.N.Misra appearing for Respondents no. 2 to 6. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.5.2006 would show that the retiral dues of the petitioner are not being paid because in the year 1993 when the petitioner was transferred to district Etawah, at the time of handing over charge in district Kanpur Dehat, proper charge had not been given by the petitioner and there was allegedly some forgery committed by him. It is not disputed that the petitioner was permitted to join at Etawah and thereafter he was again transferred to Hamirpur, where also he was permitted to join and he subsequently retired from there. No such objection of this kind with regard to any objection regarding handing over charge was ever taken during the service period of the petitioner. Even after the passing of the impugned order dated 10.5.2006, the Additional Registrar (Administration) had written to the District Assistant Registrar on 11.8.2006 calling for an explanation that if charge was not properly handed over by the petitioner, then what action was taken in the matter at that time. It was also questioned in the said letter that when important documents like cash book, receipt book etc. had not been handed over by the petitioner, then how were the accounts maintained by the society from where the petitioner was transferred. These are the pertinent questions to which no satisfactory reply has been given by the respondents.
A person cannot be expected to explain his conduct with regard to handing over of the charge much after his retirement. If there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner at the time of handing over charge when he was transferred from one district to another, then action should have been taken by the respondents immediately. The very fact that the petitioner was permitted to join at the place of his transfer, would mean that the same was done after the petitioner had given proper charge at the place from where he had been transferred. It is very easy for the employer to level charge of this sort against the employee after his retirement when he becomes helpless and cannot have access to the documents and various records to prove that he had handed over the charge. In view of the fact that no action was taken against the petitioner in the year 1993 itself and the petitioner was permitted to join at the place where he was transferred and also keeping in view the query made by the Additional Registrar vide his communication dated 11.8.2006 that how the accounts had been reconciled in the absence of the cash book, receipt book etc. in my view the ground on which the payment of retiral dues has been withheld by the respondents as has been given in the impugned order dated 10.5.2006, is wholly unjustified and thus liable to be quashed.
This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P., Respondent no.1 is quashed. No order as to cost.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has retired more than a decade back and has not been paid his retiral dues, while allowing this writ petition and quashing the order dated 10.5.2006, it is further directed that the respondents shall ensure payment of the retiral dues, to which the petitioner may be found entitled to, within four months along with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum. The Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union PCU Bhawan, Lucknow, Respondent no.2, shall ensure compliance of this order. In case if the same is not paid within the aforesaid period of four months, the respondents shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. It is clarified that if the retiral dues are paid within the aforesaid period of four months, the respondents shall only be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum. Since the petitioner has retired more than 13 years ago, looking to the conduct of the respondents, it is directed that the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union PCU Bhawan, Lucknow, Respondent no. 2, shall ensure that a competent officer approaches the petitioner to get all the formalities completed by the petitioner within one month from today and thereafter process his claim form or claim application within next three months so that the payment is made to the petitioner within the time granted by this Court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.