State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Guards Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another v. Ajay Kumar Singh

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that the private respondent herein was promoted/ transferred to the post of Deputy Commandant General at Central Training Institute, Home Guards, Lucknow vide order dated 01.08.2001. The respondent made representation to the State Government vide letters dated 29.12.2005,

20.02.2006, 12.10.2006, 13.12.2006 and 17.04.2007 for grant of 15% training allowance. Thereafter, some correspondence took place between 2 SPLAD No. 392 of 2025 the officials of the Home Guards department and the State Government as to the entitlement of the respondent to 15% training allowance in terms of the Government Orders dated 12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999, which ended in a letter dated 18.06.2007 written by the State Government to the Commandant General, Home Guards, UP, Lucknow giving conditional approval in this regard, subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the said letter dated 18.06.2007 and the Government Orders dated

12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999. In pursuance of letter of the State Government dated 18.06.2007 the said training allowance was provided to the respondent till 2013. However in 2014 vide letter dated 07.10.2014 the State Government wrote to the Commandant General, Home Guards, UP, Lucknow that the same had been incorrectly granted to the respondent and certain other persons namely Shri Ram Krishna Verma, Shri Sunil Kumar and Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh, as none of these persons including the respondent was posted in the aforesaid training institute on transfer of service or deputation, whereas under the Government Order dated 12.05.1999 the said allowance was payable only to those who are posted on deputation or transfer of service and not otherwise.

6. In pursuance to the aforesaid communication of the State Government an order of recovery was issued on 02.03.2015 to the respondent. The said order lead to filing of a writ petition by the respondent bearing Writ A No.2861 of 2017 challenging the said order dated 21.03.2025, apart from other orders dated 26.11.2014, 29.01.2015, 07.10.2014. It is these orders which have been quashed by the writ court. The writ court has found that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent. He was in possession of Design of Training (DOT)/ Direct Trainers Skills (DTC) certificate, which was required as per the Government Order dated

21.08.1999, although he was not posted on the basis of deputation or transfer of service. The writ court has found that the respondent worked in the training institute undisputedly from the year 2001 to 2013 and was paid 15% training allowance from 16.02.2005 to 15.05.2013 without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. No opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent before issuing the order of recovery, which was for recovery of a substantial amount of Rs.7,31,226/-. Moreover, the order 3 SPLAD No. 392 of 2025 of recovery was passed after the retirement of the respondent from the services of the appellant on 31.01.2015. The writ court has accordingly relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Kadir and ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and ors. vs. Rafeeq Masih; Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 decided on 18.12.2014 to allow the writ petition and quash the said order.

7. Now the contention of counsel for the appellant was that the respondent was not posted on deputation or transfer of service, therefore, apparently he was not covered by the Government Order dated 12.05.1999 and was erroneously and incorrectly granted 15% training allowance, however, he could not demonstrate before us there was any fraud or misrepresentation on his part this regard. Merely making a representation dated 20.02.2006 to the State Government in this regard cannot be termed as fraud or misrepresentation especially when prior to it on 29.12.2005 the Commandant General, Home Guards, Lucknow had himself corresponded with the State Government as to the payment of 15% training allowance to the respondent, which resulted in an order dated 18.06.2007, albeit of conditional approval. Now after this order dated 18.06.2007 by the State Government it was for the Commandant General, Home Guards, UP or any Officer subordinate to him, who may have been responsible for taking a decision in terms of the said Government Order to scrutinize the eligibility and entitlement of the respondent to 15% training allowance under the Government Orders dated 12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999. On such exercise being made the department paid 15% training allowance from the year 2007 to 2013 without any misrepresentation or fraud on part of the respondent atleast none has been shown to us in this appeal. The respondent has already retired and no notice was given to the respondent prior to issuing the recovery certificate. Moreover, recovery was made from the gratuity of the respondent, however, no such provision has been placed before us under which this could have been done. Such amount could not have been recovered from gratuity payable to the respondent.

8. On being confronted with the aforesaid scenario, especially as the writ court has exercised its discretion in the light of decision of Hon'ble the 4 SPLAD No. 392 of 2025 Supreme Court, therefore, there was no reason for interference in an intra court appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that writ court has quashed the Government Order dated 07.10.2014 which is applicable not only to the respondent but to the other persons also who had not filed the writ petition. In this regard counsel for the respondent states that infact the other persons whose names figure in the Government Order dated 07.10.2014 never got the training allowance, however, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that on the strength of the impugned judgment they are now claiming 15% training allowance. If it is so, then we make it clear that the impugned judgment shall not be the basis for claiming or for grant of any benefit dehors the Government Orders dated 12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999. It shall not be treated as a precedent to be followed in other cases.

9. With the aforesaid clarification we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the writ court. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed.

10. It is however open for the appellants to recover the aforesaid amount from the officers, who are responsible for extending the said benefit to the respondent, if they are still in service. September 24, 2025 Arnima (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ARNIMA SINGH ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that the private respondent herein was promoted/ transferred to the post of Deputy Commandant General at Central Training Institute, Home Guards, Lucknow vide order dated 01.08.2001. The respondent made representation to the State Government vide letters dated 29.12.2005,

20.02.2006, 12.10.2006, 13.12.2006 and 17.04.2007 for grant of 15% training allowance. Thereafter, some correspondence took place between 2 SPLAD No. 392 of 2025 the officials of the Home Guards department and the State Government as to the entitlement of the respondent to 15% training allowance in terms of the Government Orders dated 12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999, which ended in a letter dated 18.06.2007 written by the State Government to the Commandant General, Home Guards, UP, Lucknow giving conditional approval in this regard, subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the said letter dated 18.06.2007 and the Government Orders dated

12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999. In pursuance of letter of the State Government dated 18.06.2007 the said training allowance was provided to the respondent till 2013. However in 2014 vide letter dated 07.10.2014 the State Government wrote to the Commandant General, Home Guards, UP, Lucknow that the same had been incorrectly granted to the respondent and certain other persons namely Shri Ram Krishna Verma, Shri Sunil Kumar and Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh, as none of these persons including the respondent was posted in the aforesaid training institute on transfer of service or deputation, whereas under the Government Order dated 12.05.1999 the said allowance was payable only to those who are posted on deputation or transfer of service and not otherwise.

6. In pursuance to the aforesaid communication of the State Government an order of recovery was issued on 02.03.2015 to the respondent. The said order lead to filing of a writ petition by the respondent bearing Writ A No.2861 of 2017 challenging the said order dated 21.03.2025, apart from other orders dated 26.11.2014, 29.01.2015, 07.10.2014. It is these orders which have been quashed by the writ court. The writ court has found that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent. He was in possession of Design of Training (DOT)/ Direct Trainers Skills (DTC) certificate, which was required as per the Government Order dated

21.08.1999, although he was not posted on the basis of deputation or transfer of service. The writ court has found that the respondent worked in the training institute undisputedly from the year 2001 to 2013 and was paid 15% training allowance from 16.02.2005 to 15.05.2013 without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. No opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent before issuing the order of recovery, which was for recovery of a substantial amount of Rs.7,31,226/-. Moreover, the order 3 SPLAD No. 392 of 2025 of recovery was passed after the retirement of the respondent from the services of the appellant on 31.01.2015. The writ court has accordingly relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Kadir and ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475 and State of Punjab and ors. vs. Rafeeq Masih; Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 decided on 18.12.2014 to allow the writ petition and quash the said order.

7. Now the contention of counsel for the appellant was that the respondent was not posted on deputation or transfer of service, therefore, apparently he was not covered by the Government Order dated 12.05.1999 and was erroneously and incorrectly granted 15% training allowance, however, he could not demonstrate before us there was any fraud or misrepresentation on his part this regard. Merely making a representation dated 20.02.2006 to the State Government in this regard cannot be termed as fraud or misrepresentation especially when prior to it on 29.12.2005 the Commandant General, Home Guards, Lucknow had himself corresponded with the State Government as to the payment of 15% training allowance to the respondent, which resulted in an order dated 18.06.2007, albeit of conditional approval. Now after this order dated 18.06.2007 by the State Government it was for the Commandant General, Home Guards, UP or any Officer subordinate to him, who may have been responsible for taking a decision in terms of the said Government Order to scrutinize the eligibility and entitlement of the respondent to 15% training allowance under the Government Orders dated 12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999. On such exercise being made the department paid 15% training allowance from the year 2007 to 2013 without any misrepresentation or fraud on part of the respondent atleast none has been shown to us in this appeal. The respondent has already retired and no notice was given to the respondent prior to issuing the recovery certificate. Moreover, recovery was made from the gratuity of the respondent, however, no such provision has been placed before us under which this could have been done. Such amount could not have been recovered from gratuity payable to the respondent.

8. On being confronted with the aforesaid scenario, especially as the writ court has exercised its discretion in the light of decision of Hon'ble the 4 SPLAD No. 392 of 2025 Supreme Court, therefore, there was no reason for interference in an intra court appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that writ court has quashed the Government Order dated 07.10.2014 which is applicable not only to the respondent but to the other persons also who had not filed the writ petition. In this regard counsel for the respondent states that infact the other persons whose names figure in the Government Order dated 07.10.2014 never got the training allowance, however, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that on the strength of the impugned judgment they are now claiming 15% training allowance. If it is so, then we make it clear that the impugned judgment shall not be the basis for claiming or for grant of any benefit dehors the Government Orders dated 12.05.1999 and 21.08.1999. It shall not be treated as a precedent to be followed in other cases.

9. With the aforesaid clarification we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the writ court. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed.

10. It is however open for the appellants to recover the aforesaid amount from the officers, who are responsible for extending the said benefit to the respondent, if they are still in service. September 24, 2025 Arnima (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ARNIMA SINGH ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench