High Court · 2025
Case Details
By means of this petition, the petitioner-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in claim petition no. 1830 of 2010 by which the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the respondent. The respondent retired from service of the petitioners in 2004 and was about 66 years of age in 2010 when he filed a claim petition challenging an order dated 31.03.2009 by which a recovery of Rs. 4,90,732/- was sought to be made from the post-retiral dues on the ground that certain money has been given to him as miscellaneous advance which has not been repaid. On being asked to show the order dated 31.03.2009 which was impugned before the Tribunal, learned Standing Counsel could not place it. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner is that money was not given as miscellaneous advance, rather some equipments were provided to him while he was in service way back in 1991 to 2004, which were not returned and that is why the value of the equipments in terms of money had been shown as miscellaneous advance against the respondent. However, from a reading of the order of the Tribunal it comes out that the order dated 31.03.2009 was for recovery of some miscellaneous advance. We may fruitfully quote the relevant findings of the Tribunal:- "4. ममनन ददनन पकन कन तकर ससनन एवव पततवलल कत अवलदकन ककयत। पततवलल पर सवलगक-7
5. कन रप मम चतर अवर अकभयनततओव दतरत कक गयल जतवच कन उपरतनत पसतसत कक गयल जतवच आखयत कदनतवक-16.01.07 जजसमम यह सपष रपसन जलखत गयत हह कक यतचल कन पकरण मम ततकतललन अवर अकभयनतत शल डल० कन ० अगवतल नन दहष भतवनत सन गजसत हदकर समसत कनयमन कत उलवघन करतन हहए यतचल कन नतम अकगम पककणर डतलत हह ककनतस इससन सवबवजधत कदई समसकचत कतरण शल अगवतल दननन मम सफल नहह रहन हम। अतत यह कमनटल शल अगवतल कद हल ददषल गतनतन हहए समपपणर कक पकत उपलबध हह, धनरतकश उनकन नतम डतलतन हहए शल अलजलत जसवह कन नतम सन उक धनरतकश खतररज करनन कक सवसतसकत करतल हह। अजधकरण कन समक भल यह पशन थत कक यतचल कन कवरद दशतरयल गयल बकतयत धनरतकश वतसतव मम लवकबत हह यत नहह। अजधकरण नन इस सवबवध मम पकतपकलगण कद बहहत सन अवसर सवबवजधत अकभलनखन कद पसतसत करनन हनतस कदयन ककनतस दद वषरव सन अजधक कक अवजध बलतनन कन उपरतनत भल पकतपकलगण अजधकरण कद वन अकभलनख जद अवर उपलबध नहह करत पतयन जजनमम यतचल कद दल गयल अकगम धनरतकश कत कववरण हद। सवलगक-7 अकभयनततओव दतरत पसतसत कक गयल आखयत हह, मम भल यह सपष रपसन जलखत गयत हह कक ऐसन महतवपपणर अकभलनख, वन यत तद जतनबपझकर नहह कदखतयन जत रहन हम यत ऐसन ककसल अकभलनख कत अससततव हल नहह हह जजसकन मतधयम सन यतचल पर अकगम पककणर डतलत गयत हह। अतत सपष हह कक सवबवजधत अकभलनख जतवच करनन वतलन अवर अकभयनततओव कक सकमकत कद भल नहह दशतरयन गयन और इस अजधकरण कन समक भल पसतसत नहह ककयन गयन। अतत ऐसन मम यह मतनत जतयनगत, कक ऐसन कदई अकभलनख पकतपकलगण कन पतस नहह हम। फलतत ककसल सतकय कन अभतव मम पकतपकलगण दतरत यतचल कक र० 4,90,732.00 कक धनरतकश कद रदकन जतनन कत कदई औकचतय पतलत नहह हदतत हह। अतत यतचल इस धनरतकश कद पतप करनन कत अजधकतरल हह। यतचल, इस धनरतकश कद रदकन जतनन कक कतजथ सन इस धनरतकश कन वतसतकवक भसगततन कक कतजथ तक 08 पकतशत सतधतरण वतकषरक बयतज कक दर सन बयतज भल पतनन कत अजधकतरल हह। जद यतचल कन पक मम हद सकतन हम,
6. तदददनससतर यतकचकत सवलकतर हदनन यदगय हह। आदनश यतकचकत सवयय सवलकतर कक जततल हह। आकनकपत आदनश कदनतवक 31.03. 2009 (सवलगक-1) कनरसत ककयत जततत हह। पकतपकलगण कद कनदरकशत ककयत जततत हह कक वन यतचल कक रदकक गयल धनरतकश र0 4,90,732.00 कत भसगततन 08 आदनश कक पमतदकणत पकतजलकप पतप हदनन कन तलन मतह कन अनदर करनत ससकनसशचतद करम।" पकतशत सतधतरण वतकषरक वयतज कन सतथ, इस कनणरय / Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents allegedly annexed with the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal. Those documents also refer to miscellaneous advance. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision under which such money could be recovered or adjusted from the post-retiral dues such as gratuity of the respondent. As regards, contention of the petitioners' Counsel that some different orders were passed with regard to the aforesaid recovery on 05.09.2007, 08.11.2005, 21.09.2005 & 18.07.2005, none of which had been challenged by the petitioner, we fail to understand as to under which provision such orders were passed after the retirement of the respondent, as no such provision has been placed before us. We made specific query to learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the respondent prior to passing of the order for recovery of the amount in question, learned Standing Counsel could not place before us any such show cause notice. It is well settled proposition of law that after retirement of a Government Servant, without issuing any show cause notice, no recovery can be made from his post-retiral dues, and it is apparent from the record that no such show cause notice was issued prior to passing of the order for recovery of the amount in question. Thus, it is apparent that the action of the petitioner suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also informed us that after retirement of the respondent, his entire post-retiral dues were paid in the year 2008 itself, and thereafter, without issuing any show cause notice, order for recovery had been passed on 31.03.2009. It is also noteworthy that the order dated 31.03.2009 has not been placed on record by the petitioner in this writ petition. Be that as it may, once it is established from the record of the case that recovery of miscellaneous advance had been ordered from the post-retiral dues of the respondent, that too after his retirement and without issuing any show cause notice to him, the said order of the recovery is unsustainable. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1830 of 2010, and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manjive Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
By means of this petition, the petitioner-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in claim petition no. 1830 of 2010 by which the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the respondent. The respondent retired from service of the petitioners in 2004 and was about 66 years of age in 2010 when he filed a claim petition challenging an order dated 31.03.2009 by which a recovery of Rs. 4,90,732/- was sought to be made from the post-retiral dues on the ground that certain money has been given to him as miscellaneous advance which has not been repaid. On being asked to show the order dated 31.03.2009 which was impugned before the Tribunal, learned Standing Counsel could not place it. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner is that money was not given as miscellaneous advance, rather some equipments were provided to him while he was in service way back in 1991 to 2004, which were not returned and that is why the value of the equipments in terms of money had been shown as miscellaneous advance against the respondent. However, from a reading of the order of the Tribunal it comes out that the order dated 31.03.2009 was for recovery of some miscellaneous advance. We may fruitfully quote the relevant findings of the Tribunal:- "4. ममनन ददनन पकन कन तकर ससनन एवव पततवलल कत अवलदकन ककयत। पततवलल पर सवलगक-7
5. कन रप मम चतर अवर अकभयनततओव दतरत कक गयल जतवच कन उपरतनत पसतसत कक गयल जतवच आखयत कदनतवक-16.01.07 जजसमम यह सपष रपसन जलखत गयत हह कक यतचल कन पकरण मम ततकतललन अवर अकभयनतत शल डल० कन ० अगवतल नन दहष भतवनत सन गजसत हदकर समसत कनयमन कत उलवघन करतन हहए यतचल कन नतम अकगम पककणर डतलत हह ककनतस इससन सवबवजधत कदई समसकचत कतरण शल अगवतल दननन मम सफल नहह रहन हम। अतत यह कमनटल शल अगवतल कद हल ददषल गतनतन हहए समपपणर कक पकत उपलबध हह, धनरतकश उनकन नतम डतलतन हहए शल अलजलत जसवह कन नतम सन उक धनरतकश खतररज करनन कक सवसतसकत करतल हह। अजधकरण कन समक भल यह पशन थत कक यतचल कन कवरद दशतरयल गयल बकतयत धनरतकश वतसतव मम लवकबत हह यत नहह। अजधकरण नन इस सवबवध मम पकतपकलगण कद बहहत सन अवसर सवबवजधत अकभलनखन कद पसतसत करनन हनतस कदयन ककनतस दद वषरव सन अजधक कक अवजध बलतनन कन उपरतनत भल पकतपकलगण अजधकरण कद वन अकभलनख जद अवर उपलबध नहह करत पतयन जजनमम यतचल कद दल गयल अकगम धनरतकश कत कववरण हद। सवलगक-7 अकभयनततओव दतरत पसतसत कक गयल आखयत हह, मम भल यह सपष रपसन जलखत गयत हह कक ऐसन महतवपपणर अकभलनख, वन यत तद जतनबपझकर नहह कदखतयन जत रहन हम यत ऐसन ककसल अकभलनख कत अससततव हल नहह हह जजसकन मतधयम सन यतचल पर अकगम पककणर डतलत गयत हह। अतत सपष हह कक सवबवजधत अकभलनख जतवच करनन वतलन अवर अकभयनततओव कक सकमकत कद भल नहह दशतरयन गयन और इस अजधकरण कन समक भल पसतसत नहह ककयन गयन। अतत ऐसन मम यह मतनत जतयनगत, कक ऐसन कदई अकभलनख पकतपकलगण कन पतस नहह हम। फलतत ककसल सतकय कन अभतव मम पकतपकलगण दतरत यतचल कक र० 4,90,732.00 कक धनरतकश कद रदकन जतनन कत कदई औकचतय पतलत नहह हदतत हह। अतत यतचल इस धनरतकश कद पतप करनन कत अजधकतरल हह। यतचल, इस धनरतकश कद रदकन जतनन कक कतजथ सन इस धनरतकश कन वतसतकवक भसगततन कक कतजथ तक 08 पकतशत सतधतरण वतकषरक बयतज कक दर सन बयतज भल पतनन कत अजधकतरल हह। जद यतचल कन पक मम हद सकतन हम,
6. तदददनससतर यतकचकत सवलकतर हदनन यदगय हह। आदनश यतकचकत सवयय सवलकतर कक जततल हह। आकनकपत आदनश कदनतवक 31.03. 2009 (सवलगक-1) कनरसत ककयत जततत हह। पकतपकलगण कद कनदरकशत ककयत जततत हह कक वन यतचल कक रदकक गयल धनरतकश र0 4,90,732.00 कत भसगततन 08 आदनश कक पमतदकणत पकतजलकप पतप हदनन कन तलन मतह कन अनदर करनत ससकनसशचतद करम।" पकतशत सतधतरण वतकषरक वयतज कन सतथ, इस कनणरय / Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents allegedly annexed with the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal. Those documents also refer to miscellaneous advance. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision under which such money could be recovered or adjusted from the post-retiral dues such as gratuity of the respondent. As regards, contention of the petitioners' Counsel that some different orders were passed with regard to the aforesaid recovery on 05.09.2007, 08.11.2005, 21.09.2005 & 18.07.2005, none of which had been challenged by the petitioner, we fail to understand as to under which provision such orders were passed after the retirement of the respondent, as no such provision has been placed before us. We made specific query to learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the respondent prior to passing of the order for recovery of the amount in question, learned Standing Counsel could not place before us any such show cause notice. It is well settled proposition of law that after retirement of a Government Servant, without issuing any show cause notice, no recovery can be made from his post-retiral dues, and it is apparent from the record that no such show cause notice was issued prior to passing of the order for recovery of the amount in question. Thus, it is apparent that the action of the petitioner suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also informed us that after retirement of the respondent, his entire post-retiral dues were paid in the year 2008 itself, and thereafter, without issuing any show cause notice, order for recovery had been passed on 31.03.2009. It is also noteworthy that the order dated 31.03.2009 has not been placed on record by the petitioner in this writ petition. Be that as it may, once it is established from the record of the case that recovery of miscellaneous advance had been ordered from the post-retiral dues of the respondent, that too after his retirement and without issuing any show cause notice to him, the said order of the recovery is unsustainable. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1830 of 2010, and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manjive Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench