High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for respondents is not present.

2. In present case, this Court has passed following orders on 12.07.2023, 01.07.2024, 02.09.2024 and 30.09.2024 respectively :- “12.07.2023 Order on memo of petition A supplementary affidavit has been filed today, in compliance with the order dated 05.07.2023 by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is taken on record. Let it be numbered by the office. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an Executive Engineer in the employ of the U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural). He was last posted at Agra and retired from service on 30.06.2021 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his post retiral benefits which include Group Insurance, Gratuity, Leave Encashment arrears on account of revision in terms of the 6th Pay Commission and Dearness Allowance, all of which he claims together with interest. A prima facie case is made out. Admit. Issue notice. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 is accepted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om, learned Counsel for the respondents. He is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. List for orders on 09.08.2023 along with a report regarding status of pleadings. Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2023 Issue notice. Let an interim mandamus be issued ordering the Managing Director (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam 4/4, Sanjay Place, Agra and the Accountant (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow to ensure amongst themselves payment of the petitioner's Group Insurance, Gratuity and Leave Encashment within a period of four weeks or show cause by filing a personal affidavit, why this interim mandamus be not made absolute. Let this order be communicated to the Managing Director (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam 4/4, Sanjay Place, Agra and the Accountant (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 72 hours.

01.07.2024

1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam submits that it is because of the pending proceedings that the post retirement dues was not cleared. He further submits that now the proceedings have ended without imposing punishment upon the petitioner and therefore, he fairly concedes that the petitioner has become entitled to all post retirement dues and the same shall be paid within a period of 45 days from today.

2. In view of the above, let the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, file compliance affidavit by the next date fixed failing which he shall be appearing in person before the Court.

3. List this case on 20.08.2024.

02.09.2024

1. Sri Amit Katiyar, Executive Engineer is present in Court in compliance of the last order of this Court dated 20.08.2024 and plea taken for non filing of compliance affidavit on the previous date is that he came to join as Executive Engineer in place of earlier incumbent on 02.07.2024 only and the earlier incumbent did not inform him, so accordingly, he did not file the compliance affidavit in compliance of the order of this Court. However, he tenders an unconditional apology for delayed compliance of the order of this Court.

2. From the perusal of compliance affidavit filed today, it transpires that some new facts were detected in respect of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner during his service period resulting in the loss to the Corporation. In respect of those charges, permission was sought from the Board of Directors and after having obtained requisite permission on 18.11.2023 an inquiry has been stipulated. However, it transpires that nothing further progressed in the matter, at least the counsel for the corporation was not made aware of the latest developments, resultantly he made a statement before the Court on 01.07.2024 that since proceedings had ended without imposing punishment, petitioner was entitled to all the post retirement dues and which would be paid within 45 days.

3. It transpires further from the affidavit that on 20.08.2024 after this Court passed an order on 01.07.2024 fixing 20.08.2024, the Managing Director issued an order leveling certain more charges and with a further direction that inquiry may be concluded in respect thereof also by 12.09.2024. These charges relating to certain new facts that are seen in the order dated 20.08.2024 do not find any mention in the earlier charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2023. Obviously, the charges relate to the petitioner when petitioner was in service and Court fails to understand as to when the charge sheet was issued on 18.11.2023 to the petitioner, why these charges were not made part of it. It therefore, clearly is indicative of the questionable conduct on the part of Managing Director after bailable warrants were issued by this Court. It is equally unfortunate that Mr. Lokesh Sharma, the then Executive Engineer who handed over charge to the new incumbent Mr. Amit Kumar Katiyar on 02.07.2024 did not intimate him the mail that he received from his panel counsel from Allahabad on 01.07.2024. Mr. Lokesh Sharma's conduct in this regard amounts to a deliberate attempt made at his end to avoid reply or query made in this regard by this Court in its order dated 01.07.2024.

4. Let both Mr. Lokesh Sharma and the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Dr. Raj Shekhar file personal affidavits in the matter by the next date fixed explaining away their position, failing which they shall be appearing in person before this Court.

5. The Managing Director will explain his position as to why he kept the matter pending in respect of the charges which he now tries to level against the petitioner under the order dated 20.08.2024 and as to why those charges did not find mention in the earlier charge sheet dated 18.11.2023.

6. Personal appearance of Mr. Amit Katiyar, Executive Engineer is dispensed with until further orders of this Court.

7. Let this matter come up again on the top of the board on 11.09.2024.

30.09.2024

1. Heard Mr. Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In paragraph-10 of the personal affidavit filed by Dr. Rajshekhar presently posted as Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Lucknow, it is submitted that on the basis of preliminary fact finding report, submitted by two member Committee, namely, Ramendra Kumar, Assistant Account Officer and Janendra Mishra, Senior Auditor, a number of officials including petitioner has been charge-sheeted. The paragraph further states that erring officials mentioned in the list including petitioner have been issued with the charge-sheet, however, the Court does not find names of any of such officials of Jal Nigam (Rural) mentioned in the report so as to find substance in the averments so made. The report only records names of different contractors and order that has been appended as annexure-11, the name mentioned in that is only of present petitioner. Thus, the Court is not satisfied with what has been stated in paragraph-10.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om seeks three days' time to come back with better affidavit mentioning the names of officials of Jal Nigam (Rural), who have also been charge-sheeted along with petitioner pursuant to the report submitted by two member Committee constituted on 16th June, 2022.

4. Here, I may further observe that an Officer, who is in service is always required to check official mails whether he is on leave or out of station. The Court though accepts apology for mistake committed due to inadvertence as is claimed in communicating the order to the new incumbent while handing over charge of his Office on 2nd July, 2024 but the Court is not satisfied with explanation offered in paragraph- 5 of the affidavit.

5. Let there be a circular issued to all officials of U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) that officials negligence in ignoring mails received from Office of Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court will be taken as a misconduct and will have adverse consequences in their future prospects in service.

6. Personal affidavit of Mr. Lokesh Sharma is accepted. Notice issued to him stands discharged.

7. Let the matter be placed on board again on 3rd October, 2024 on which date affidavit on behalf of Managing Director, Jal Nigam (Rural) be filed.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that till date neither any adverse order is passed in any disciplinary proceedings nor retiral benefits have been given to petitioner.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to concerned respondents that due retiral benefits of petitioner shall be paid within 4 weeks from today and in case of any legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to petitioner within aforesaid period.

5. In case of default and if petitioner is constrained to approach this Court again for same cause of action, it may be a reason to take strict view against concerned respondents.

6. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for respondents is not present.

2. In present case, this Court has passed following orders on 12.07.2023, 01.07.2024, 02.09.2024 and 30.09.2024 respectively :- “12.07.2023 Order on memo of petition A supplementary affidavit has been filed today, in compliance with the order dated 05.07.2023 by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is taken on record. Let it be numbered by the office. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an Executive Engineer in the employ of the U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural). He was last posted at Agra and retired from service on 30.06.2021 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his post retiral benefits which include Group Insurance, Gratuity, Leave Encashment arrears on account of revision in terms of the 6th Pay Commission and Dearness Allowance, all of which he claims together with interest. A prima facie case is made out. Admit. Issue notice. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 is accepted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om, learned Counsel for the respondents. He is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. List for orders on 09.08.2023 along with a report regarding status of pleadings. Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2023 Issue notice. Let an interim mandamus be issued ordering the Managing Director (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam 4/4, Sanjay Place, Agra and the Accountant (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow to ensure amongst themselves payment of the petitioner's Group Insurance, Gratuity and Leave Encashment within a period of four weeks or show cause by filing a personal affidavit, why this interim mandamus be not made absolute. Let this order be communicated to the Managing Director (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam 4/4, Sanjay Place, Agra and the Accountant (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 72 hours.

01.07.2024

1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam submits that it is because of the pending proceedings that the post retirement dues was not cleared. He further submits that now the proceedings have ended without imposing punishment upon the petitioner and therefore, he fairly concedes that the petitioner has become entitled to all post retirement dues and the same shall be paid within a period of 45 days from today.

2. In view of the above, let the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Rural), U.P. Jal Nigam, file compliance affidavit by the next date fixed failing which he shall be appearing in person before the Court.

3. List this case on 20.08.2024.

02.09.2024

1. Sri Amit Katiyar, Executive Engineer is present in Court in compliance of the last order of this Court dated 20.08.2024 and plea taken for non filing of compliance affidavit on the previous date is that he came to join as Executive Engineer in place of earlier incumbent on 02.07.2024 only and the earlier incumbent did not inform him, so accordingly, he did not file the compliance affidavit in compliance of the order of this Court. However, he tenders an unconditional apology for delayed compliance of the order of this Court.

2. From the perusal of compliance affidavit filed today, it transpires that some new facts were detected in respect of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner during his service period resulting in the loss to the Corporation. In respect of those charges, permission was sought from the Board of Directors and after having obtained requisite permission on 18.11.2023 an inquiry has been stipulated. However, it transpires that nothing further progressed in the matter, at least the counsel for the corporation was not made aware of the latest developments, resultantly he made a statement before the Court on 01.07.2024 that since proceedings had ended without imposing punishment, petitioner was entitled to all the post retirement dues and which would be paid within 45 days.

3. It transpires further from the affidavit that on 20.08.2024 after this Court passed an order on 01.07.2024 fixing 20.08.2024, the Managing Director issued an order leveling certain more charges and with a further direction that inquiry may be concluded in respect thereof also by 12.09.2024. These charges relating to certain new facts that are seen in the order dated 20.08.2024 do not find any mention in the earlier charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2023. Obviously, the charges relate to the petitioner when petitioner was in service and Court fails to understand as to when the charge sheet was issued on 18.11.2023 to the petitioner, why these charges were not made part of it. It therefore, clearly is indicative of the questionable conduct on the part of Managing Director after bailable warrants were issued by this Court. It is equally unfortunate that Mr. Lokesh Sharma, the then Executive Engineer who handed over charge to the new incumbent Mr. Amit Kumar Katiyar on 02.07.2024 did not intimate him the mail that he received from his panel counsel from Allahabad on 01.07.2024. Mr. Lokesh Sharma's conduct in this regard amounts to a deliberate attempt made at his end to avoid reply or query made in this regard by this Court in its order dated 01.07.2024.

4. Let both Mr. Lokesh Sharma and the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Dr. Raj Shekhar file personal affidavits in the matter by the next date fixed explaining away their position, failing which they shall be appearing in person before this Court.

5. The Managing Director will explain his position as to why he kept the matter pending in respect of the charges which he now tries to level against the petitioner under the order dated 20.08.2024 and as to why those charges did not find mention in the earlier charge sheet dated 18.11.2023.

6. Personal appearance of Mr. Amit Katiyar, Executive Engineer is dispensed with until further orders of this Court.

7. Let this matter come up again on the top of the board on 11.09.2024.

30.09.2024

1. Heard Mr. Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In paragraph-10 of the personal affidavit filed by Dr. Rajshekhar presently posted as Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Lucknow, it is submitted that on the basis of preliminary fact finding report, submitted by two member Committee, namely, Ramendra Kumar, Assistant Account Officer and Janendra Mishra, Senior Auditor, a number of officials including petitioner has been charge-sheeted. The paragraph further states that erring officials mentioned in the list including petitioner have been issued with the charge-sheet, however, the Court does not find names of any of such officials of Jal Nigam (Rural) mentioned in the report so as to find substance in the averments so made. The report only records names of different contractors and order that has been appended as annexure-11, the name mentioned in that is only of present petitioner. Thus, the Court is not satisfied with what has been stated in paragraph-10.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Om seeks three days' time to come back with better affidavit mentioning the names of officials of Jal Nigam (Rural), who have also been charge-sheeted along with petitioner pursuant to the report submitted by two member Committee constituted on 16th June, 2022.

4. Here, I may further observe that an Officer, who is in service is always required to check official mails whether he is on leave or out of station. The Court though accepts apology for mistake committed due to inadvertence as is claimed in communicating the order to the new incumbent while handing over charge of his Office on 2nd July, 2024 but the Court is not satisfied with explanation offered in paragraph- 5 of the affidavit.

5. Let there be a circular issued to all officials of U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) that officials negligence in ignoring mails received from Office of Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court will be taken as a misconduct and will have adverse consequences in their future prospects in service.

6. Personal affidavit of Mr. Lokesh Sharma is accepted. Notice issued to him stands discharged.

7. Let the matter be placed on board again on 3rd October, 2024 on which date affidavit on behalf of Managing Director, Jal Nigam (Rural) be filed.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that till date neither any adverse order is passed in any disciplinary proceedings nor retiral benefits have been given to petitioner.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to concerned respondents that due retiral benefits of petitioner shall be paid within 4 weeks from today and in case of any legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to petitioner within aforesaid period.

5. In case of default and if petitioner is constrained to approach this Court again for same cause of action, it may be a reason to take strict view against concerned respondents.

6. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad