Shiv Sant Saxena (In Wria 20412 Of ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. , ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13399 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 196 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Shiv Sant Saxena (In Wria 20412 Of 2018)
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. , Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- In Person
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Patel
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Shri Shiv Sant Saxena, the appellant who appears in person, learned State Counsel and Shri Pankaj Patel representing the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and Sitapur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd, Sitapur.

By means of this intra court appeal, a challenge has been made by the appellant-petitioner to the judgment and order dated 4.4.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A 20412 of 2020 and whereby the claim of the appellant-petitioner for reimbursement of 50% fee paid by the appellant-petitioner on the education of his children, has been rejected. Learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal has observed that considering the nature of the scheme and condition with which the amount was sanctioned, the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to the said benefit.

The appellant, who appears in person, has drawn our attention to the scheme promulgated by Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited on 9.10.1985 and has submitted that in the said scheme no such condition as has been relied upon by the Federation, finds mentioned. He has then argued that learned Single Judge has erred in law by giving certain findings without even considering as to what exactly was provided for in the scheme embodied in the office order issued by the Managing Director of the Federation dated 9.10.1985. It has also been argued by the appellant-petitioner that while sanctioning the amount no such condition, as was pleaded by the respondents in the writ petition, was imposed. In this view it has been argued by the appellant-petitioner that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the reimbursement of the fee to the appellant-petitioner was made for the amount spent by him on the education of his children in four consecutive years and so far as the sanction granted for the 3rd financial year namely for 2008-09 is concerned, it was accorded by the Managing Director on 29.12.2008, wherein it was clearly indicated that in-case of objection the appellant-petitioner shall be liable to refund the amount being paid to him. In this view, the submission is that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which may warrant any interference by this court in this special appeal.

We have heard the respective submissions made by the parties and have considered the documents available before us on this special appeal. The scheme embodied in the office order dated 9.10.1985 provides that the Class-3 employees of the Federation will be benefited by the said scheme according to which such employees shall be reimbursed 50% of the fee which may be spent by them on the studies of their children in specific courses namely Veterinary Science, Engineering, Master's Degree in Dairying and M.B.A etc. The scheme dated 9.10.1985 does not contain any condition rather it only says that the employees whose children are studying in the specified courses shall be entitled to reimbursement of 50% of the tution fees which might be spent by such an employee on the studies of his children. It was pleaded by the respondents before the learned Single Judge that the said scheme contained such a condition that in-case of any objection, the employee concerned shall be liable to refund the amount. Shri Pankaj Patel has utterly failed to draw our attention of any such provision in the scheme contained in the office order dated 9.10.1985 issued by the Managing Director of the Federation. The scheme nowhere provides any such condition.

We may further notice that the appellant-petitioner was given the benefit of reimbursement of 50% of the tuition fee spent by him on the studies of his children for the financial year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010. Each year the petitioner was made payment of sum of Rs.20,500/- and as such the total amount reimbursed to the appellant-petitioner under the said scheme was Rs.82,000/-.

The sanction accorded by the Managing Director on 22.12.2006 is available on record, a perusal of which does not anywhere indicate that any such condition was imposed as is being pleaded by the learned counsel representing the respondents. For the first time, it appears that while sanctioning the amount for the financial year 2008-09 that the Managing Director accorded the sanction on 29.12.2008 and while doing so it was stated that a letter/undertaking be obtained from the appellant-petitioner that in-case under the directions of the Cooperative Dairy Federation, any objection is made, the employee concerned (appellant-petitioner) shall re-pay back the said amount. In our considered opinion the said conditional sanction of the amount for the financial year 2008-09 was absolutely un-lawful for the reason that the scheme under which the reimbursement of the amount was made to the appellant-petitioner did not contain any such condition. Further, we may also notice that the objection raised by the Audit Department, which is the reason for the Federation for asking the appellant-petitioner to re-pay back the amount paid to him is also on record. The audit objection is contained in the letter dated 14.5.2018 written by the Manager, Dugdh Sangh, Sitapur to the Manager (Administration & Personal), Dugdh Sangh, Lucknow, it has been stated therein that the amount of fee-reimbursement was sanctioned to the petitioner on the condition that in-case there is any objection, same shall be recovered from him. As to what exactly is the objection, is not borne out from the said letter dated 14.5.2018. The letter does not say that the sanction accorded to the petitioner for giving him the benefit of fee reimbursement was not in conformity with the scheme of fee reimbursement as available in the Circular/Office Memorandum dated 9.10.1985. It is also not the case of the respondents that petitioner at the time of making the application for grant of the benefit of fee reimbursement, had mis-represented or concealed any fact. In absence of any mis-representation or concealment of any fact by the appellant-petitioner and also in absence of any violation of the scheme embodied in the office memorandum dated 9.10.1985, we are constrained to say that appellant-petitioner could not have been required to remit the amount of fee-reimbursement back to the Federation or Dugdh Sangh.

For the reason aforesaid we find that learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition by means of the judgment and order under appeal herein, has not considered the exact terms and conditions of the scheme. We also find that the aforesaid aspects of the matter appeared to have escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, this special appeal is allowed and judgment and order dated 4.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.20412 of 2018 is hereby set aside and accordingly a direction is issued to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.82,000/- to the appellant-petitioner within a period of four months from today. We, however, are not directing payment of any interest to the appellant-petitioner considering the financial condition of the Federation and the Dugdah Sangh. There will be no no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 19.9.2022

RS