Gajpal Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 26395 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62161
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6929 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Gajpal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. The instructions produced by the respondents are taken on record.

2. The present petition has been filed against recovery order dated 11.08.2022 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. It is argued that the petitioner was entitled to leave encashment of Rs.4,50,000/-, however, nothing has been paid.

4. It is on record that the petitioner retired on 31.01.2022 and the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment in terms of the U.P. Recruitment Benefits Rules 1961 which have, in turn, incorporated the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation.

5. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the retirement on 31.01.2022, no order was passed against the petitioner and subsequent to the retirement, no proceedings have been drawn by taking recourse to Regulation 351-A of the CSR. He further argues that there is no authorization as is required under Regulation 351-A of the CSR.

6. The counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the instructions which are taken on record, argues that subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, an order dated 11.08.2022 was passed whereby the directions were issued for recovery of Rs.2,02,358/- as the damages against the petitioner and thus, in the light of the said, the benefit of leave encashment have not been granted to the petitioner.

7. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ A No.2197 of 2022 decided on 21.04.2022 which has been upheld in Special Appeal Defective No.59 of 2022 wherein this Court had considered the mandate of Regulation 351-A of CSR and had held that any order without the compliance of the Regulation 351-A of CSR would be bad in law and would not entitle the respondents from making any adjustment.

8. Thus, following the said law as affirmed in Special Appeal Defective no.59 of 2022, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of leave encashment along with interest @7% per-annum from the date of retirement till actual payment/realization.

9. It is further clarified that the defense of the respondents that an order dated 11.08.2022 was passed against the petitioner would not be a valid defense as the said order is without any authority of law and contrary to the mandate of the Regulation 351-A of CSR.

10. The amount as directed above, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

11. It is clarified that the corporation would be at liberty to recover the damages in accordance with law, if so advised.

12. The writ petition stands disposed off with the said observations.

Order Date :- 26.9.2023

akverma