Virendra Kumar Dixit vs State Of U P And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 18875 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147908
 
Court No. - 32
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8577 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Dixit
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Jitendra Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the arrears of difference of salary and other service benefits along with interest in favour of the petitioner of the post of Deputy Director, Social Welfare w.e.f. 21.03.2006 forthwith;

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension and other retiral benefits according to the post and pay scale of Deputy Director and release the same along with interest in favour of petitioner;

c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the benefits of selection grade w.e.f. 1988 after completion of 8 years continuous satisfactory services, next higher pay scale w.e.f. 1998 after completion of 14 years' service and one increment w.e.f. 1999 after completion of 19 years' service along with interest forthwith;

d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to determine and release the benefits of fourth, fifth etc. pay commission over the salary and pension of the petitioner along with interest.

The facts of the case are that on the recommendations of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as District Social Welfare Officer in 1977 The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare) in October, 1980 and was further promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Social Welfare). While the petitioner was working as Deputy Director (Social Welfare) Faizabad Division, Faizabad, certain departmental proceedings were instituted against him and the said departmental proceedings concluded with the order dated 21.3.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

By order dated 21.03.2006, the petitioner was held liable for the charges levelled against him. The punishment given to the petitioner by order dated 21.03.2006 was reduction of one rank from the post of Deputy Director of Social Welfare to the post of Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare). The order dated 21.03.2006 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court through Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006. No interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of the order dated 21.03.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and while Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006 was pending, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2009 as Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare). After 21.03.2006 till the date of his retirement, the petitioner was working as Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare) as a consequence of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and was paid the salary and other emoluments payable to Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare). Subsequently, by order dated 28.09.2016 passed by this Court, Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006 was allowed and the order dated 21.03.2006 was quashed and it was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, liberty was given to the State/Department to hold further/fresh inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. Paragraph nos. 30 and 31 of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2016 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006 are reproduced below:-

"30. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.3.2006 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-1 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

31. However, this order shall not preclude respondent from holding further/fresh inquiry against petitioner from the stage of receiving reply from petitioner and in accordance with law, it may pass a fresh order."

As the petitioner had already crossed the age of superannuation on 2009, therefore, as a consequence of the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by this Court, he could not be reinstated as Deputy Director (Social Welfare). Subsequently, after obtaining permission from the Governor, State of U.P., under Regulation 351 - A of the Civil Service Regulations, inquiry proceedings were again instituted against the petitioner and an order dated 31.07.2018 was passed again holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The order was passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the punishment given to the petitioner was deduction of 10 % from his of pension for two years.

It has been stated in the petition that the order dated 31.07.2018 has not yet been implemented resulting in heavy financial losses to the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that after the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by this Court quashing the order dated 21.03.2006, the petitioner is to be treated to have retired from the post of Deputy Director (Social Welfare) and entitled to all service benefits from 21.03.2006 till the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.06.2009 including grant of promotional scale of pay and ACP as Deputy Director (Social Welfare).

It has been argued that the subsequent order dated 31.07.2018 only directs reduction of ten percent of the pension amount of the petitioner for a period of two years and after a joint reading of the orders dated 21.03.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, 28.09.2016 passed by this Court allowing Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006 and 31.07.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary, the pension of the petitioner and other post retiral dues are to be calculated treating the petitioner to have retired from the post of Deputy Director (Social Welfare). It has been argued that the petitioner is still being paid pension treating him to have retired from the post of Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare) and his service benefits which he is entitled to treating him in service as Deputy Director (Social Welfare) from 21.03.2006 to 30.06.2009 has not yet been paid. It is with the aforesaid argument and grievance, the petition has been filed for the reliefs as noted above.

The counter affidavit filed by the Standing Counsel and the instructions of the Standing Counsel do not deny the factual aspect of the case as stated in the writ petition and as noted above.

I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.

By order dated 28.09.2016 passed in Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006, the punishment order dated 21.03.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority was quashed and it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Apparently, quashing of the order results in the petitioner not being reduced in rank and the effect of the order dated 28.09.2016 is that the petitioner had to be posted as Deputy Director Social Welfare and was entitled to all service benefits payable to any holder of the said post. The second order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare. Department does not reduce the rank of the petitioner but the punishment awarded in the said order is deduction of ten percent from the pension of the petitioner for a period of two years. The pension and other reitral dues of the petitioner have to be calculated treating him to have retired as Deputy Director (Social Welfare) and on the salary payable to him on 30.06.2009 treating him to have held the post of Deputy Director Social Welfare from 21.03.2006 to 30.06.2009. Apparently, the act of the State respondents in not granting all service benefits to the petitioner treating him to have held the post of Deputy Director Social Welfare also from 21.03.2006 to 30.06.2009 and in not paying his pension or other retiral dues treating him as Deputy Director Social Welfare on 30.06.2009 after recalculating the same is arbitrary and discriminatory, illegal and violative of the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 26685 of 2006. The action also violates the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner retired at the age of 60 on 30.07.2009. The petitioner must by now be 75 years old.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to pass appropriate orders quantifying the service benefits that would be admissible to the petitioner treating him to have held the post of Deputy Director (Social Welfare) from 21.03.2006 to 30.06.2009 and also the pension payable to him treating him to have retired as Deputy Director (Social Welfare) and to fix his pension and other retiral dues within one month from today. The arrears which would consequently accrue after deducting the service benefits and the retiral dues paid to the petitioner treating him to have held the post of Additional District Development officer (Social Welfare) from 21.03.2006 to 30.06.2009 and to have retired as such shall be paid alongwith 12% simple interest per annum calculated from 31.07.2018 within the next 15 days after deducting the amount which was to be deducted from the pension of the petitioner as a consequence of the order dated 31.07.2018.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.

A copy of the order shall be sent to the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow by the Registrar (compliance) within 72 hours.

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

Vipasha