Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 7 Others vs Umesh Kumar Sinha on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 42
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 234 of 2022
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Respondent :- Umesh Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Shashank Shekhar Mishra,Kartikeya Saran
AND
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 352 of 2021
Appellant :- Umesh Kumar Sinha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner (appellant in Appeal No. 352 of 2021).
2. The intra court appeals have been filed by the State Government, as well as, the petitioner of the writ petition, challenging the judgment and order dated 6 October 2021, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5636 of 2012 (Umesh Kumar Sinha Versus State of U.P. and others).
3. Both the appeals are being heard together on the consent of the parties. The facts of Special Appeal No. 234 of 2022 is being referred to for the sake of convenience.
4. The facts briefly stated is that petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of District Non Formal Education Officer, Varanasi. He came to be suspended on 27 January 1998, and after a lapse of 13 years on 12 October 2011, the charge sheet came to be issued levelling five charges of financial irregularity. The departmental enquiry was kept pending and during the pendency of the departmental enquiry petitioner came to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 July 2015.
5. Petitioner had challenged before the writ court the suspension and the charge sheet, inter alia, on the ground of inordinate delay causing prejudice to the petitioner.
6. Learned Single Judge, upon perusal of the material placed on record and the pleadings of the respective parties, was of the opinion that initiation of enquiry after such long lapse of time not only causes extreme prejudice to the employee but otherwise goes contrary to the interest of administration, as also larger public interest, inasmuch, as the government servant under the threat of such proceedings or victimization would not be willing to perform even just duties unless such arbitrary action is met with strong disapproval by the Courts.
7. The writ petition came to be allowed. The operative portion of the order is extracted:
"Having considered the respective submissions and upon examination of materials brought on record this Court finds that absolutely no reasons have been placed on record by the respondents to explain the inordinate delay of thirteen years in initiation of the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner otherwise has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2015. In the totality of circumstances as also for the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is liable to succeed and is allowed. The charge-sheet issued to petitioner as also the order of suspension and its continuance for a period of thirteen years without any justification are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of salary for the period he remained under suspension along with continuity and other service benefits. The retiral benefits which are found due and payable to petitioner in terms of his entitlement as per above shall also be worked out and paid to him within a period of four months, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum. It shall however be open for the respondents to recover the amount of interest from the salary of the officer found responsible for not ensuring release of the retiral benefits in terms of the aforesaid direction. The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
8. The appeal of the writ petitioner is confined claiming 8% interest on the entire amount admissible and due to the petitioner from the due date.
9. On specific query, learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from the seventh respondent, admits that petitioner has not been paid arrears of salary and post retiral dues pursuant to the order of the writ court.
10. According to the petitioner, petitioner was paid the following amount towards subsistence allowance and provisional pension:
Total amount received (till date 18 Apr 23)
Head of Payment
Date
Amount in Rupees
Remarks
Subsistence Allowance
29 Jun 16
624022
For 203 months instead of 210 months
(Without revising Pay as per 5th pay commission)
When petitioner was suspended on 27/01/1998
Interim Pension/Provisional Pension
17 Apr 17
15600
For 20 months @ Rs. 780/month without including DA
3 May 17
23061
Arrear of DA for above 20 months + 1 month provisional pension (Petitioner was retired on 31/07/2015)
7 Jun 17
Provisional pension
18 July 17
Provisional Pension
20 Sep 17
Provisional pension
16 Oct 17
Provisional pension
21 Dec 17
Provisional pension
31 Mar 18
Provisional pension
31 Mar 18
Provisional pension
29 Jun 18
Provisional pension
29 Jun 18
Provisional pension
Total
679242
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisional pension came to be stopped after 30 June 2018. That apart the subsistence allowance and the provisional pension is based on the pay computation of VI Pay Commission, whereas, petitioner is entitled to arrears based on V Pay Commission w.e.f. 01 January 1996, VI Pay Commission w.e.f. 01 January 2006 and VII Pay Commission w.e.f. 01 January 2016, respectively.
12. In this backdrop, it is urged that the petitioner is entitled to salary, including, General Provident Fund (GPF), Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), Provisional Pension after 2018, Gratuity, Pension, Bonus (annual), ACP/grade and promotion.
13. It is accordingly submitted that since the amount as directed by the writ court has not been paid within four months from the date of impugned order i.e. 6 October 2021, petitioner is entitled to the interest as awarded by the learned Single Judge on the entire admissible amount from the due date.
14. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the facts and, on instructions, admits that computation of salary after deducting the amounts paid towards subsistence allowance/provisional pension paid to the petitioner until 29 January 2018 and arrears thereof is yet to be computed and released to the petitioner.
15. On specific query, learned counsel for the State is unable to point out any illegality, perversity and infirmity in the impugned order.
16. Accordingly, the appeal being Special Appeal No. 234 of 2022 (State of U.P. and others Versus Umesh Kumar Sinha) filed by the State of U.P. being devoid of merit is dismissed.
17. The appeal being Special Appeal No. 352 of 2021 (Umesh Kumar Sinha Versus State of U.P. and others) is disposed of clarifying that petitioner shall be entitled to 8% interest on the total amount due to the petitioner from the due date till the date of payment. It is directed that the State authorities shall compute and pay the arrears of salary/pension and other entitlement along with interest, expeditiously within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023
K.K. Maurya
