Allahabad High Court
U.P. Electronics Corporation ... vs Krishna Kumar And Another on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 48 of 2022
Appellant :- U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. And Another
Respondent :- Krishna Kumar And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Eshita Bhasin
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shubhankar Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The respondents are retired employees of U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). They had filed Writ A No. 1545 of 2022 for payment of their post retirement dues, including the amount of gratuity and leave encashment, along with interest. They had also claimed promotion on the post of Dy. Manager (Legal) and Dy. Manager (Accounts) respectively from the date certain other similarly placed employees were promoted in pursuance of a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the month of January 2019 and to fix their salary on the promotional post and payment of their salaries.
3. The petitioners had contended that on the dates of their retirement, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against any of them and they were wrongly denied promotion allegedly on the ground of that some disciplinary proceedings were pending against them.
4. On 22.03.2022, an order was passed in the writ petition directing the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to produce the relevant records pertaining to pendency of the proceedings against the petitioners. After perusal of the record, the Hon'ble Single Judge proceeded to decide the Writ Petition and the judgment dated 01.04.2022 records that neither any disciplinary proceedings had been initiated nor had any charge sheet been filed against any of the petitioners till the respective dates of their retirement. No F.I.R. had been lodged against any of the petitioners. It is also recorded in the judgment of learned Single Judge that there is no provision in the Service Rules applicable to the Corporation permitting continuance of any disciplinary proceedings and or withholding of post retirement dues on the ground of pendency of any disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that there is nothing which can prevent the payment of post retirement dues to the petitioners. Regarding the claim of promotion of the petitioners, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that from the records produced before the Court, it was evident that the only reason for denial of promotion to the petitioners was pendency of the matter as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner or not. In such a situation, even sealed cover procedure could not have been adopted as neither the petitioners had been placed under suspension nor had any disciplinary proceedings been initiated against them. No charge sheet has been filed against any of the petitioners in any criminal case.
6. The Hon'ble Single Judge held that in these circumstances, the petitioners were entitled to be promoted and their rights of promotion was denied illegally. Accordingly the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition directing the respondents (appellants in this appeal) to take a decision regarding promotion of the petitioners based on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 16.02.2019, from the date other similarly situated employees were considered and promoted. The respondents were further directed to calculate the post retirement dues after a decision regarding the petitioners' promotion is taken and to pay the same accordingly and the question of payment of interest on the delayed payment shall also be considered by the respondent - Corporation.
7. The respondents in the Writ Petition have challenged the aforesaid judgment dated 24.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge by filing this intra court appeal under Chapter-VIII, rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules mainly on the ground that a vigilance enquiry had been initiated against the petitioners and during pendency of the said enquiry, neither the retirement benefits could have been ordered to be paid to them nor were they entitled to be promoted.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the petitioners had not been recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee owing to their involvement in an act involving moral turpitude. However, the learned Counsel for the appellants could not successfully assail the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge after perusing the original record produced by the appellants, that on the respective dates of retirement of the petitioners, neither any disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against them nor had they been placed under suspension and no charge sheet had been filed against any of the petitioners.
9. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants could not assail the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge that there is no provision in the Service Rules applicable to the respondents - Corporation permitting continuance of any disciplinary proceeding and / or withholding of post retirement dues on the ground of pendency of any disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding.
10. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge warrants no interference in this appeal.
11. The Special Appeal lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Ashish pd.
