High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no. 4 is hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed amendment application, the same is taken on record. Office is directed to allot the application number. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection if the aforesaid amendment application is allowed. Accordingly the amendment application is allowed. Let the necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. After the aforesaid amendment, the prayers of the petitioner are as under:- "(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 of Superintending Engineer, Zila Panchayat District Panchayat Monitoring Cell Department of Panchayati Raj U.P. Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition i(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refund Rs. 8,58,730/- to the petitioner deducted from the gratuity amount of the petitioner, forthwith. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to deduct any amount from the post retiral dues payable to the petitioner." Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned ₹ order dated 25th March 2025 (Annexure No. 7) for the reason that the impugned recovery to the tune of 8,58,730/- has been executed from gratuity without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or without giving any show cause notice to that effect. The petitioner retired from post of Engineer on 30th June 2024 and was given no due certificate at the time of his retirement and is getting regular pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the recovery has been executed in the name of access amount paid to him when he was in service, but at that point of time, no explanation was called from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that no undertaking was taken from the petitioner at the time of his retirement. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid recovery when he perused the details of payment of retiral dues wherein it has been indicated that the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the petitioner. He has also stated that such recovery may not be executed from the gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the judgement and order dated 4th April 2025 passed by the Apex Court in re:- Jogeswar Sahoo and Others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and Others, arising out of SLP (C) No. 5918 of 224, where in vide paragraph 11, it has been directed that if any recovery is executed against the retired employee without affording any opportunity of hearing, such recovery would be nullity in the eyes of law. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid order reads as under:- "11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable." Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned order does not say that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not before executing the impugned recovery but the aforesaid fact may be verified from the department. ₹ Be that as it may, if the impugned order dated 25th March 2025 does not indicate about the opportunity of hearing having been given to the petitioner before executing the impugned recovery to the tune of 8,58,730/-, then the aforesaid order may not be sustained being voility of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th March 2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Zila Panchayat District Panchayat Monitoring Cell Department of Panchayati Raj U.P. Lucknow is hereby set-aside/quashed so far as the impugned recovery to the tune of 8,58,730/- has been done. ₹ If at the time of retirement, any undertaking has been given by the petitioner or the authorities concerned has got plausible reason to do the same, the opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner seeking explanation from him and after considering such explanation and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, any appropriate order may be passed. The aforesaid exercises may be undertaken within a period of two months from the receipt of the order of this court, failing which the amounts recovered, i.e., 8,58,730/- shall be returned to the petitioner fourthwith, and if unnecessary delay is caused in making such payment, the petitioner would be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7% on the delayed payment. ₹ This petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no. 4 is hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed amendment application, the same is taken on record. Office is directed to allot the application number. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection if the aforesaid amendment application is allowed. Accordingly the amendment application is allowed. Let the necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. After the aforesaid amendment, the prayers of the petitioner are as under:- "(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 of Superintending Engineer, Zila Panchayat District Panchayat Monitoring Cell Department of Panchayati Raj U.P. Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition i(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refund Rs. 8,58,730/- to the petitioner deducted from the gratuity amount of the petitioner, forthwith. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to deduct any amount from the post retiral dues payable to the petitioner." Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned ₹ order dated 25th March 2025 (Annexure No. 7) for the reason that the impugned recovery to the tune of 8,58,730/- has been executed from gratuity without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or without giving any show cause notice to that effect. The petitioner retired from post of Engineer on 30th June 2024 and was given no due certificate at the time of his retirement and is getting regular pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the recovery has been executed in the name of access amount paid to him when he was in service, but at that point of time, no explanation was called from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that no undertaking was taken from the petitioner at the time of his retirement. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid recovery when he perused the details of payment of retiral dues wherein it has been indicated that the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the petitioner. He has also stated that such recovery may not be executed from the gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the judgement and order dated 4th April 2025 passed by the Apex Court in re:- Jogeswar Sahoo and Others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and Others, arising out of SLP (C) No. 5918 of 224, where in vide paragraph 11, it has been directed that if any recovery is executed against the retired employee without affording any opportunity of hearing, such recovery would be nullity in the eyes of law. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid order reads as under:- "11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable." Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned order does not say that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not before executing the impugned recovery but the aforesaid fact may be verified from the department. ₹ Be that as it may, if the impugned order dated 25th March 2025 does not indicate about the opportunity of hearing having been given to the petitioner before executing the impugned recovery to the tune of 8,58,730/-, then the aforesaid order may not be sustained being voility of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th March 2025 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Zila Panchayat District Panchayat Monitoring Cell Department of Panchayati Raj U.P. Lucknow is hereby set-aside/quashed so far as the impugned recovery to the tune of 8,58,730/- has been done. ₹ If at the time of retirement, any undertaking has been given by the petitioner or the authorities concerned has got plausible reason to do the same, the opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner seeking explanation from him and after considering such explanation and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, any appropriate order may be passed. The aforesaid exercises may be undertaken within a period of two months from the receipt of the order of this court, failing which the amounts recovered, i.e., 8,58,730/- shall be returned to the petitioner fourthwith, and if unnecessary delay is caused in making such payment, the petitioner would be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7% on the delayed payment. ₹ This petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench