Allahabad High Court
Narendra Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 142 of 2021 Appellant :- Narendra Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Grijesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on Exemption Application No. 1 of 2021 The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the High Court is allowed.
The defect stands cured.
Order on Memo of Appeal By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant.
The writ petition was preferred against the order dated 03.07.2020 and 07.10.2020 to terminate the services of the petitioner/appellant finding appointment based on forged documents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is not pressing the appeal for challenge to the order of termination. The only prayer is to cause interference in the recovery of salary for the period he rendered his services.
A reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1292 of 2020, decided on 28.01.2021 has been given, therein also, the facts were similar. The Court caused interference in the order of recovery of salary for the period the petitioner/appellant therein rendered his services.
It is taken into consideration that there was delay in seeking verification of the documents and during the intervening period if one had worked, then salary earned by him cannot be recovered. It would otherwise be impossible for low paid employees to repay the entire amount of salary for the period of his services as in this case is 10 to 11 years.
It is more so when after the termination, he may not have sufficient means to repay the amount. The Apex Court has also caused interference in the case of recovery against low paid employees. It is in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334.
Accordingly, only to that extent of recovery of amount of salary, interference in the impugned order is caused so as the judgment while not causing it for termination from service.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 //Nirmal//