Allahabad High Court
Uday Vir Singh vs Lko. Development Authority Thru. Its ... on 19 May, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29309 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5329 of 2025 Petitioner :- Uday Vir Singh Respondent :- Lko. Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shireesh Kumar,Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3.
2. During course of argument, Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that he may be permitted to implead the State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Govt of U.P., Lucknow, as opposite party No.4 in the array of opposite parties, during the course of the day and copy of the petition may be provided to Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
3. The precise contention of Sri Shireesh Kumar is that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer from LDA on 28.022025 and on the date of retirement nothing adverse has been intimated to the petitioner. It appears that nothing adverse has been intimated to LDA also inasmuch as after his retirement, the Finance Controller, LDA issued a letter dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-3) directing the Branch Manager, I.D.B.I Bank, Snehnagar, Alambagh, Lucknow to credit the amount of post retiral dues of the petitioner in his account. In the aforesaid letter the details of post retiral dues have been indicated. Since, the aforesaid letter dated 04.03.2025 has been issued by the LDA therefore, the petitioner may safely presume he has been retired having his unblemished service record, otherwise the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2025 would have not been issued by the LDA. Sri Shireesh Kumar has further submitted that more than two months' period have passed after passing the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2025, but no retiral dues has been paid to the petitioner till date.
4. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for LDA has produced some letters relating to the petitioner, photocopy thereof is taken on record. The first letter is an explanation dated 22.04.2025 issued by the Joint Secretary of the department of newly impleaded opposite party No.4, perusal thereof reveals that some explanation has been sought from the petitioner under rule 10 (2) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 read with U.P. Development Authority Centralized Services Rules, 1985.
5. Notably, any minor punishment may be provided in case the explanation under rule 10(2) of the Rules, 1999, is not satisfactory.
6 Sri Shireesh Kumar has stated that he is not aware about the aforesaid explanation dated 22.04.2025 and he may not say that this letter has not been received to the petitioner as he has no specific instructions on that matter.
7. The second letter is an office order dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary of the department whereby the departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Another correspondences are relating to some illegal constructions being done in the city of Lucknow and some responsibilities have been fixed against the erring officers.
8. Sri Shireesh Kumar has stated that the law is trite on the point that if the appointing authority/ competent authority is willing to stop making payment of post retiral dues of any retired employee, the specific provision for that has been given under regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulation. There is no other provision of law with the competent authority to stop making payment of post retiral dues. The first explanation of regulation 351-A categorically provides that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges farmed against the petitioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from and earlier date, on such date;
9. Sri Shireesh Kumar has stated that no chargesheet has been served to the petitioner till date, therefore, the provision of regulation 351-A may not be invoked against the petitioner. He has also submitted that even if the explanation dated 22.04.2025 is taken on its face value, the view of the State Government is to pass any minor punishment if the explanation of the petitioner is not found satisfactory and in that case too the retiral benefits/ pensionary benefits of the petitioner may not be stopped. In support of his aforesaid submission Sri Shireesh Kumar has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictim of Apex Court in the case of Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair vs. Cochin University of Science and technology and others reported in (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 404 referring para 32, which reads as under:
"32. While we accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which exists at the time of retirement, we are unable to find any legal basis in the action of the respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25(a). The law, as recognised by this Court in Deokinandan Prasad and Syed Yousuddin Ahmed unequivocally states that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated."
10. Therefore, Sri Shireesh Kumar has stated that in view of the given facts and circumstances and also in the light of the letters being provided by the counsel for the LDA, the pension of the petitioner may not be stopped in any manner whatsoever.
11. Since, the controversy in question is having a specific legal question to the effect that as to whether on the basis of initiation of any departmental inquiry or issuing show cause notice, the payment of retiral dues may be stopped and the answer of the aforesaid question has been settled that unless and until the charge-sheet is served upon the employee, the provisions of regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulation would not be invoked and in absence of invocation of such provision no impugned action stopping the payment of pension may be taken against the retired employee, therefore, without calling upon any response from the opposite parties, I hereby disposed of this petition finally at the admission stage.
12. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to release the monthly pension, amount of commutation of pension and total amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner in the light of letter dated 04.03.2025 issued by the Finance Controller of LDA within a period of two months from production of certified copy of the order of this Court, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment strictly in accordance with.
13. It is needless to say that if the petitioner has received show cause notice dated 22.04.2025 and has already submitted his explanation, the appropriate decision may be taken with promptness and if he has not submitted his explanation of the aforesaid, he may submit his explanation within fifteen days and any appropriate decision may be taken by the competent authority of the State within a further period of one month strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
14. It is also needless to say that if any exercise is undertaken pursuant to the office order dated 21.02.2025 (supra), the same shall have effect prospectively and the payment of retiral dues in terms of this order shall remain subject to final outcome of such inquiry, if any.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally, in view of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Reena/-
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)