Ramesh v. State of U.P. and

Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac),Vashishtha Naraian Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra,C.S.C.,Shri Ram Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. In this writ petition, following order was passed on 16.05.2025 :- “Heard Mr. A.C.Tiwari, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Prabal Singh and Mr. Atal Behari Tiwari, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shri Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner claims that the pension and other terminal dues to which he is entitled have not been paid. The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on 13.04.1984. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 06.03.1997. Aggrieved by the order of termination the petitioner had approached this Court on two occasions. The issue was finally decided by this Court by the judgment rendered on 26.04.2019 in Writ A No. 4339 of 2019 (Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). This Court in Ramesh (supra) held as under:- "6. Perusal of the record would go to show that the General Manager has not been able to understand as to what was expected of him under the order of this Court. This Court while allowing the earlier writ petition had clearly set aside the order of termination. Liberty, however, was granted to the respondents to hold disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law and question of arrears of salary was to be governed by the ultimate order to be passed in disciplinary enquiry.

7. It was imperative for the respondents to have first reinstated the petitioner even for the purposes of conducting the disciplinary enquiry, which has not been done. No proper enquiry has otherwise been conducted in the matter, as would be evident from the record.

8. The order impugned shows complete lack of understanding on part of the authority concerned. Instead of passing an appropriate order after holding disciplinary enquiry, as was made permissible under the orders of this Court, he has merely rejected petitioner's representation. There was no direction issued for the employer to consider petitioner's representation. By rejecting petitioner's representation the authority concerned has virtually reiterated the order of termination which has already been quashed by this Court. Apart from showing complete lack of understanding and non-application of mind on part of officer concerned, the order impugned can even be termed as contemptuous in nature. For all such reasons, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 20th February, 2019 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents shall immediately reinstate the petitioner and start paying salary to him from 10.8.2018, when the writ petition was allowed by this Court. It would be open for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension for the purposes of holding of the enquiry. The enquiry, however, must be conducted as is contemplated in law. Such an enquiry would be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The question of arrears of salary etc., would abide by the outcome of the fresh order, as has already been held by this Court on 10.8.2018. " Evidently, no enquiry was conducted even after the orders passed by this Court. To the contrary the petitioner was permitted to join and continue as if it was business as usual. The Managing Director, Jal Sansthan shall file his personal affidavit regarding the failure of the respondents to conduct the enquiry as per law and the officials responsible for the same. The Managing Director shall also disclose the amounts to which the petitioner is lawfully entitled under different heads, manner of computation and status of disbursal of the aforesaid amounts in the tabulated form. Put up this matter on 15.07.2025 in the list of fresh cases. It is contended that the Jal Sansthan does not have any provision to continue or initiate the enquiry proceedings after the superannuation of an employee. The Managing Director of the Jal Sansthan shall initiate the process for ensuring that appropriate provisions which are analogous to Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation are adopted or incorporated in the service regulations of the Jal Sansthan. This will enable the Jal Sansthan to continue or initiate disciplinary proceedings after superannuation of employees charged with misconduct and also prevent such employees from cheating justice on technical grounds. ”

2. S/Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, submits that substantial grievance of petitioner has been addressed and substantial amount has been paid. So far as remaining amount is concerned, it will be paid within a short period.

3. Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed that substantial grievance of petitioner has been addressed, however, he further submits that question whether petitioner is entitled for salary from 13.05.1996 when he was dismissed from service till 10.08.2018 when by order of this Court whereby he was reinstated does not require much deliberations as respondents have not initiated any inquiry thereafter, therefore, it is deemed that petitioner is entitled for salary for said period.

4. Learned counsel for respondents has disputed aforesaid submissions, however, he fairly submits that a decision will be taken within a short period in regard to payment of salary and if there is any legal impediment, the same will be communicated to petitioner within four weeks from today.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with following observations :- (i) Respondents will pay remaining duly admissible part of dues within a short period of six weeks and in case there is any error in calculation, the petitioner will have an opportunity to communicate the respondents. (ii) Respondents will take a decision on payment of arrears of salary for period between 10.03.1996 and 10.08.2018 within aforesaid period and in case of any legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac),Vashishtha Naraian Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra,C.S.C.,Shri Ram Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. In this writ petition, following order was passed on 16.05.2025 :- “Heard Mr. A.C.Tiwari, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Prabal Singh and Mr. Atal Behari Tiwari, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shri Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner claims that the pension and other terminal dues to which he is entitled have not been paid. The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on 13.04.1984. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 06.03.1997. Aggrieved by the order of termination the petitioner had approached this Court on two occasions. The issue was finally decided by this Court by the judgment rendered on 26.04.2019 in Writ A No. 4339 of 2019 (Ramesh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). This Court in Ramesh (supra) held as under:- "6. Perusal of the record would go to show that the General Manager has not been able to understand as to what was expected of him under the order of this Court. This Court while allowing the earlier writ petition had clearly set aside the order of termination. Liberty, however, was granted to the respondents to hold disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law and question of arrears of salary was to be governed by the ultimate order to be passed in disciplinary enquiry.

7. It was imperative for the respondents to have first reinstated the petitioner even for the purposes of conducting the disciplinary enquiry, which has not been done. No proper enquiry has otherwise been conducted in the matter, as would be evident from the record.

8. The order impugned shows complete lack of understanding on part of the authority concerned. Instead of passing an appropriate order after holding disciplinary enquiry, as was made permissible under the orders of this Court, he has merely rejected petitioner's representation. There was no direction issued for the employer to consider petitioner's representation. By rejecting petitioner's representation the authority concerned has virtually reiterated the order of termination which has already been quashed by this Court. Apart from showing complete lack of understanding and non-application of mind on part of officer concerned, the order impugned can even be termed as contemptuous in nature. For all such reasons, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 20th February, 2019 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents shall immediately reinstate the petitioner and start paying salary to him from 10.8.2018, when the writ petition was allowed by this Court. It would be open for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension for the purposes of holding of the enquiry. The enquiry, however, must be conducted as is contemplated in law. Such an enquiry would be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The question of arrears of salary etc., would abide by the outcome of the fresh order, as has already been held by this Court on 10.8.2018. " Evidently, no enquiry was conducted even after the orders passed by this Court. To the contrary the petitioner was permitted to join and continue as if it was business as usual. The Managing Director, Jal Sansthan shall file his personal affidavit regarding the failure of the respondents to conduct the enquiry as per law and the officials responsible for the same. The Managing Director shall also disclose the amounts to which the petitioner is lawfully entitled under different heads, manner of computation and status of disbursal of the aforesaid amounts in the tabulated form. Put up this matter on 15.07.2025 in the list of fresh cases. It is contended that the Jal Sansthan does not have any provision to continue or initiate the enquiry proceedings after the superannuation of an employee. The Managing Director of the Jal Sansthan shall initiate the process for ensuring that appropriate provisions which are analogous to Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation are adopted or incorporated in the service regulations of the Jal Sansthan. This will enable the Jal Sansthan to continue or initiate disciplinary proceedings after superannuation of employees charged with misconduct and also prevent such employees from cheating justice on technical grounds. ”

2. S/Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, submits that substantial grievance of petitioner has been addressed and substantial amount has been paid. So far as remaining amount is concerned, it will be paid within a short period.

3. Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed that substantial grievance of petitioner has been addressed, however, he further submits that question whether petitioner is entitled for salary from 13.05.1996 when he was dismissed from service till 10.08.2018 when by order of this Court whereby he was reinstated does not require much deliberations as respondents have not initiated any inquiry thereafter, therefore, it is deemed that petitioner is entitled for salary for said period.

4. Learned counsel for respondents has disputed aforesaid submissions, however, he fairly submits that a decision will be taken within a short period in regard to payment of salary and if there is any legal impediment, the same will be communicated to petitioner within four weeks from today.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with following observations :- (i) Respondents will pay remaining duly admissible part of dues within a short period of six weeks and in case there is any error in calculation, the petitioner will have an opportunity to communicate the respondents. (ii) Respondents will take a decision on payment of arrears of salary for period between 10.03.1996 and 10.08.2018 within aforesaid period and in case of any legal impediment, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 N. Sinha NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad