Akeel Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15164 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33565
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3541 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Akeel Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Badrish Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Mr. Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Sandeep Sharma, leaned Standing Counsel, for respondents-State Authorities, and perused the record.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filedfor quashing the order/notice dated 27.03.2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure-1).

3. This is second writ petition for the same cause of action as the petitioner had earlier filed petition Writ-A No.18283 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2023. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 would read as under:-

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the opinion that in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as fact that the impugned orders is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the impugned order dated 07.08.2020 with regard to re-fixation of salary of petitioners and recovery orders dated 26.08.2020 and 29.09.2020 are patently illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for, therefore, the same are hereby set aside/quashed.

In case, respondents believe that case of petitioners falls within the exception of Rafiq Masih case (supra) or that their salary was wrongly paid in excess and need for refixation for future payment is required, they may pass fresh order only after giving a notice and proper opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

Such a notice may be given by respondents, if so required, to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the entire process shall also be completed within a further period of two months from the date of issuance of notice. In case such a notice is not issued to petitioners within six weeks, respondents shall also pay the amount already deducted from the petitioners under the impugned orders."

4. In compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 passed in petition Writ-A No.18283 of 2020, the show-cause-notice dated 27.03.2023 has been issued to the petitioner, which is impugned in the present petition. In stead of replying the show-cause-notice, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. This Court is of the view that the petitioner should file reply to the show-cause-notice within fifteen days from today and, he may take all the please, which are available to him, as directed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 and, thereafter the competent Authority would pass order in respect of any recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner.

6. If the petitioner does not file reply within the time prescribed above, the authority may proceed to pass an ex-parte order. However, if the petitioner does so, he should be given an opportunity of being heard as well before finalizing the order.

7. DISPOSED OF.

[D.K. SINGH, J.]

Order Date :- 15.5.2023

MVS/-