Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. Bakhteyar Yusuf

#1. Heard Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

#2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 23.12.1993 in Block Development Office, Amawa, District Raebareilly, thereafter he was transferred to the office of Block Development Officer, Rudrapur, District Deoria on 07.02.1996 and further promoted as Assistant Accounts Clerk and finally promoted as Accountant and, he superannuated on 30.11.2023. However, on 27.12.2023, post- retirement of the writ petitioner, an order came to be passed by District Development Officer, Deoria, third respondent, whereby a recovery of an amount of Rs.565063/- was sought to be made with respect to excess payment / incorrect fixation of the salary from the period from 01.04.2021 to

20.11.2023. The writ petitioner thereafter on 19.02.2024 (Annexure-4) at Page-48 of the paper-book preferred an objection/ representation before the third respondent/ District Development Officer, Deoria, reference whereof has been made in para-9 of the writ petition.

#3. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that post-retirement, the said recovery or unilateral alteration of the pay-scale/salary could not have been made as the writ petitioner ought to have been put to notice. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1994 SC 2480. He also seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) AIR 2015 SC 696, Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Pramukh Sachiv, Irrigation Department and others, 2014(16) SCC 444 2 WRIA No. 15209 of 2025 and an order of the coordinate Bench in Writ-A no.13590 of 2017, Nebu Lal and 5 others vs. State of U.P. decided on 06.12.2019.

#4. Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the orders dated

30.12.2012 and 27.12.2012, whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.565063/- is being sought to be made from the gratuity of the writ petitioner on the premise that there has been wrong fixation of the salary and also the order dated 05.11.2024.

#5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, the order in question is stated to have been passed in the year 2023/2024 and the writ petitioner himself has preferred an objection/representation on

19.02.2024 before the third respondent, which according to the writ petitioner is pending, thus as per the instructions so received by him, the representation so preferred by the writ petitioner shall be decided in correct perspective, looking into the fact whether the writ petitioner was put to notice at the time when the recovery was effectuated or not and also examining the matter on merits.

#6. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection.

#7. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, and looking into the over all facts situation, including the fact that the orders, which have been sought to be challenged are dated 20.12.2023, 27.12.2023 and 05.11.2024 and the writ petitioner has been presented before this Court on 23.09.2025 and already the writ petitioner has preferred a representation/ objection on

19.02.2024, thus this Court is disposing of the writ petition in the following manner:- (a) The writ petitioner shall prefer the representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order before the authorities by 27.10.2025; (b) On the said motion, the third respondent shall summon the records and put to notice the writ petitioner and fix a date in the first week of November, 2025 on personal hearing/or through representative. Thereafter the writ petitioner be accorded personal hearing and the order be passed within two months thereafter. It shall be open for the writ petitioner to raise all the legal and factual issues in that regard, which this Court has no reason to disbelieve 3 WRIA No. 15209 of 2025 that the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

#8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 9, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad