Allahabad High Court
Shriniwas Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10932 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shriniwas Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Namit Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notice dated 16.6.2021 & order dated 19.5.2022 passed by respondent no.3- Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh Region, Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on 22.9.1983 on the post of Conductor in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. After doing satisfactory service, he retired from the post of Senior Clerk on 31.5.2021. Services of petitioner is governed with the provision of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations, 1981). He next submitted that respondent no.3 has served impugned notice dated 16.6.2021 upon the petitioner directing him to deposit Rs.1,26,396/- in the account of UPSRTC within seven days failing which same shall be deducted from his post retiral dues. Thereafter, petitioner has filed reply before the respondent no.3 on 28.6.2021, but respondent no.3 without considering the same, rejected the representation of the petitioner. He also submitted that impugned notice has been issued without conducting any enquiry and further provision of Regulations, 1981 does not provide any enquiry or disciplinary proceedings after retirement, therefore, impugned notice of recovery is bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 24.7.2014 & 15.7.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 26825 (Kishan Lal Pathak Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C & Another) of 2009 & 6237 of 2022 (Brahamnad Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and others) and . He lastly submitted that suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to pay post retiral dues of petitioner at the earliest.
On the last occasion, case was heard on 4.8.2022 and Court has directed the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to seek instruction about the enquiry, if any conducted against the petitioner and also produce relevant rules.
Sri Namit Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of instruction received fairly submitted that no enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and further services of petitioner is governed with the provision of Regulations, 1981, which is having no provision for any enquiry or disciplinary proceedings after retirement.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, Regulations, 1981 and judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Regulations, 1981 is having no provision for any enquiry or disciplinary proceedings after retirement. This Court in the matter of Kishan Lal Pathak (supra) & Brahamnad Tyagi (supra) has also taken the very same view.
Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned notice dated 16.6.2021 & order dated 19.5.2022 passed by respondent no.3- Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh Region, Aligarh are quashed and writ petition is allowed. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are directed to release the gratuity of petitioner alongwith interest as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as other post retiral dues alongwith interest at the rate of 8% from due date to the date of actual payment.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022
Junaid
