Allahabad High Court
Ganpati Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 May, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14041 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ganpati Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Devp. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan,Shailendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice for opposite party No.1 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel has put in appearance for opposite party No.2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record and Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel has put in appearance for opposite party Nos.3 & 4.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.04.2018, passed by the General Manager, Jalkal Vibhag, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, whereby the appointment of the petitioner dated 08.05.1985 has been cancelled after his retirement, which took place on 31.12.2017.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after 31.12.2017, the relation between the employer and employee i.e. Jalkal Vibhag and the petitioner has been ceased, therefore, appointment of the petitioner may not be cancelled after his retirement.
On the other hand, Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner had obtained the appointment by concealing the relevant facts and by producing the forged documents. He has further submitted that inquiry in question had already been initiated against the petitioner even when the petitioner was in service and the same has been concluded after his retirement.
Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel for the Jalkal Vibhag and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam pray for and are granted three weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits.
By filing the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 4 shall demonstrate as to how the appointment of any employee can be cancelled after his retirement and as to what action can be taken against the retired employee. They shall also demonstrate the relevant provisions of law applicable in the instant case as to how the inquiry, which has been initiated against any employee during his service period, shall be concluded after his retirement and what action can be taken against him as per law.
Since the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.12.2017, therefore, the authority concerned shall consider for making payment of those post retiral benefits, which can be paid legally even if any employee held liable for any misconduct. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
List this case in the week commencing 02.07.2018 as fresh.
When the case is next listed, name of Sri Fareed Ahmad and Sri K.K. Pandey, Advocate be shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite parties.
Order Date :- 16.5.2018
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
