Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. ... vs Mr. Amit Yadav And Another on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 48 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Other Backward Category Welfare Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. And Another
Respondent :- Mr. Amit Yadav And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Kumar
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Objection filed to the application seeking condonation of delay is taken on record.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 files rejoinder to the said objection, which is also taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the State-authorities is also taken on record.
Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay and having considered the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent no.1-petitioner, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No.18995 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1-petitioner has been allowed and the appellants-State authorities have been directed to remit the amount of scholarship to the respondent no.1-petitioner within a period of four weeks.
Submission of learned State counsel representing the State-authorities is that once on account of certain reasons, remittance of the amount of scholarship in the bank account of respondent no.1-petitioner failed, as per scheme of scholarship and the methodology for remittance of the amount of scholarship, such amount is remitted to the State Government. Learned State counsel has further submitted that for the purpose of disbursement of scholarship to post-metric students, the State Government has promulgated non-statutory rules vide Office Memorandum dated 19.08.2016 and in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6 (1)(b), in case there is any discrepancy in the data/details submitted by the applicant for scholarship, such as (i) details are incorrect, (ii) incomplete or (iii) the same are doubtful, then in these eventualities scholarship will not be available to the applicant.
It has been argued by learned State counsel that learned Single Judge while passing the order under appeal before us did not delve into the aforesaid provisions contained in Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Scheme governing grant in payment of scholarship.
Lastly, learned State counsel has submitted that as per the Public Financial Management System (PFMS) if the transaction for some reason is not complete, it is the responsibility of the Nodel Officer to remit such an amount with the State Government. It has thus been argued that the Nodel Officer entrusted with disbursement of scholarship did not have any option in the present case but to remit the amount to the State Government.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1-petitioner has stated that it is not a case where the petitioner had furnished any incorrect or incomplete or doubtful or ambiguous details in his application seeking grant of scholarship and accordingly the provision contained in Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Scheme does not have any application here and as such the argument based on the said provision by learned State counsel is highly misconceived. The prayer on behalf of the respondent no.1-petitioner is, thus, that the special appeal be dismissed.
Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-petitioner was a regular student of B.Tech and was pursuing the said course at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya (Awadh) University, Ayodhya in the academic session 2018-19. He accordingly applied for grant of scholarship which undisputedly was approved to be paid to the respondent no.1-petitioner and the amount approved for payment as scholarship to him was Rs.54,400/-. However, as per the methodology adopted by the State authorities when the amount of scholarship of Rs.54,400/- was transmitted to the bank account of respondent no.1-petitioner, the transaction could not succeed for the reason that the amount sought to be deposited had exceeded the limits set on account by Bank for credit. The exact wordings of the failed transaction are "amount exceed limits set on account by Bank for credit." In fact the amount of only Rs.4400/- could be credited in the account of respondent no.1 and the rest of Rs. 50,000/- could not be credited for the aforesaid reason.
The question at this juncture which arises for our consideration is as to whether such a reason can be said to be valid for denying the respondent no.1-petitioner the claim of scholarship to which he is legally entitled to.
It is not a case where the ground as urged by learned State counsel based on the provision contained in Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Scheme is available to the State authorities for denying the scholarship. Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Scheme is extracted hereunder:-
"vkuykbu vkosnu i= esa dksbZ [email protected]@[email protected]@lafnX/[email protected] djus ij [email protected]=k dks Nk=o`fRr ,oa 'kqYd izfriwfrZ vuqeU; ugha gksxhA"
The aforequoted provision of Rule 6 (1) (b) clearly reveals that an applicant for scholarship can be denied the benefit if he furnishes any incorrect or incomplete or ambiguous/doubtful details in his application. Certainly, it is not a case where the respondent no.1-petitioner furnished any incorrect/incomplete or doubtful/ambiguous details relating to him while making application for grant of scholarship.
It has also not been disputed by learned State authorities that the respondent no.1-petitioner was sanctioned the amount of Rs.54,400/- towards the scholarship. The fact of the matter is that even the said amount was attempted to be remitted to the account of respondent no.1-petitioner, however, the exact benefit of the part of scholarship amounting to Rs.50,000/- could not be availed by the respondent no.1-petitioner only for the reason that the amount sought to be remitted in his bank account exceeded the limit set on the account by Bank for credit.
It is not a case where non remittance of the amount can, in any manner, be attributed to the respondent no.1-petitioner. It is only per chance that the credit limit of the bank account of the respondent no.1-petitioner was less than the amount sought to be remitted by the State authorities.
Such a reason for denying the benefit of a welfare scheme such as the present scheme of the State Government of disbursement of scholarship to the socially backward classes of citizens, in our considered opinion, cannot be approved of. Had it been a case where the remittance was not possible on account of the reasons given in Rule 6 (1) (b) of the Scheme, situation might have been different. It is only because the bank account of the respondent no.1-petitioner had some credit limit, as such the amount remitted by the State authorities could not be finally accepted in his account which actually deprived of the respondent no.1-petitioner of the amount of scholarship.
The other ground being urged by learned State counsel is absolutely frivolous and unacceptable in a matter of disbursement of scholarship to socially backward classes of citizen. Even if any technical system requires the amount, where transaction could not be completed, to be remitted back to the State Government/ treasury, there is nothing to stop the State authorities to reimburse the said amount to the applicant who is otherwise entitled and in fact has been held to be entitled, in this case, for grant of such scholarship.
Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, we are not able to persuade ourselves with the submissions made by the State counsel.
The special appeal is, thus, dismissed.
Before parting with the case, we will be failing in our duty if we do not express our concern that such matters ought not to have travelled to the Court after two rounds of litigation before learned Single Judge.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023
Renu/-
