Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA MANI TRIPATHI versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Mani Tripathi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 12300 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3966 (8 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  12300 of 2007

Rajendra Mani Tripathi                  Vs.                  State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

Petitioner was initially appointed in the Agriculture department on 26.8.1966. He retired from service on 30.6.2006 as Krishi Prasar Sangathak (Group II). The petitioner claims that he is entitled to payment of his post retiral dues as well as pension but by an order dated 2.11.2006 it has been directed that a deduction of Rs. 1,06,739/- be made from the dues of the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of his pay made in the year 1985 and subsequently again in the year order 2000.

Nowhere in the order has it been stated that the said wrong fixation of his pay was because of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner. If at all any wrong fixation of pay was made, it was on account of the mistake of the respondent-authorities itself.  In no case can the fixation of the salary be attributed to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, recovery of any such amount, which has already been paid to the petitioner, because of some lapse on the part of the respondent-authorities cannot be now made from the petitioner after his retirement. Such view has also been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Sharma v. Union of India (1994) 2  SCC 521 and by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bindeshwari Sahai Srivastava v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department 1996 A.W.C. 947. Consequently the impugned order dated 2.11.2006, whereby direction for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,06,739/- has been made from the petitioner, is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, quashed. In case if the respondents have recovered any such amount from the petitioner, the same shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith.

With regard to the question of payment of pension and other retirral dues to the petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that the same be paid to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a comprehensive representation with regard to his claims before Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, 6th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, Respondent no.2, on which the said Respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of filing of the same. After decision on the representation of the petitioner, the pension and other dues of the petitioner shall be fixed within a month thereafter and such dues shall be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter. It is, however, clarified that if there has been any mistake in the matter of calculaton/fixation of salary of the petitioner, the same can be corrected only after the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing. However, the correction or re-fixation of salary would take effect only from the date of correction and not retrospectively. It is further clarified that in case if it is found that the salary of the petitioner is to be re-fixed, the same shall be only for the purpose of fixation of his pension but then also no recovery of any excess amount already paid to the petitioner shall be made from him.

This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.

dt.  8.3.2007

dps


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.