Allahabad High Court
Harish Chandra Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15883 of 2022
Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Singh,Awadh Behari Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was working on the post of Collection Amin and junior to petitioner, have been paid pay scale and consequential benefits whereas petitioner has not been paid any consequential benefits, therefore, he has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.62250 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.5.2015 with direction to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner as granted to Chandra Bhusan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 12.5.2015, District Magistrate, Deoria-respondent no.2 has passed an order dated 26.4.2016 directing the payment of salary etc. to the petitioner along with certain conditions. He next submitted that in pursuance of direction made by respondent no.2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhaj, Deoria-respondent no.4 has passed order dated 23.11.2016 fixing the pay scale and payment has also been made to the petitioner.
He next submitted that after retirement, petitioner was not paid retiral dues, therefore, he has again approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.46628 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2021 with direction to the respondents to pay retiral dues to the petitioners alongwith certain conditions. Thereafter, petitioner has served order of High Court dated 31.8.2021, but the same has not been complied with, therefore, petitioner has no option, but to file Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. 298 of 2022, which was also disposed of vide order dated 16.2.2022 with direction to the respondents to comply the order dated 31.8.2021.
He further submitted that again respondent no.2 passed the order dated 6.5.2022 granting permission for payment of retiral dues to the petitioner in accordance with law. He submitted that thereafter respondent no.4 has passed impugned order dated 11.06.2022 with the observation that earlier order dated 23.11.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not correct as pay scale was wrongly fixed at that time and further fixing the liability of recovery of Rs.11,11,442/- against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on two grounds. He firstly submitted that respondent no.4 is having no authority to review earlier order dated 23.11.2016 vide impugned order dated 11.06.2022 and secondly, in light of judgment of Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih: 2015 (4) SCC 334, in case of incorrect fixation of pay scale, any payment is made, no recovery can be made after retirement, therefore, impugned order is bad on both the grounds and liable to be set aside with direction to pay post retiral dues.
Learned Standing Counsel though opposed, but could not dispute the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Matter requires consideration.
Respondents are also directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 14.12.2022.
Until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the order dated 11.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.4 shall remain stayed.
Let an ad interim mandamus be issued to respondent no.4 to pay post retiral dues to the petitioner or show cause by filing affidavit within the same time.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
P Kesari
