Allahabad High Court
Krishna Chandra Vishwakarma vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 24 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42875
Court No. - 49 Reserved
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10793 of 2024
Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Vishwakarma
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer posted with the Saryu Canal Division-I, Bansi District Siddharth Nagar. He is approaching the age of superannuation and would retire from service on 30.09.2025. The petitioner boasts of an unblemished service record in the Irrigation Department. There is a policy, as the petitioner says, or a system for projects of the Irrigation Department, where there is sanction of a monetary advance or imprest to carry on work of the project in favour of particular officers. This advance is later on adjusted upon presentation of utilization vouchers by the Officer sanctioned the imprest. The petitioner was sanctioned a cash imprest regarding a project, involving purchase of land, to lay a canal. He was sanctioned a sum of Rs.2 lacs towards miscellaneous advance or imprest on 19.08.2018. Likewise, he was sanctioned Rs.5 lacs on 26.09.2018 and Rs.1 lac on 04.09.2018, all for the execution of the project. The advance, the petitioner says, was entrusted to his subordinates, who are Irrigation Supervisors, to wit, Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ramsanwarey Gaud, Ram Achal Yadav and Amit Kumar Singh, for the purpose of purchasing land for the canal. These Irrigation Supervisors have been authorized to purchase land for the canal.
2. It is the petitioner's case that during this period of time, his son, Divyansh Vishwakarma suffered from kidney disease, which after a prolonged treatment, he could not survive. He died of the disease. It is on account of the said grave misfortune suffered by the petitioner that he could not submit some expenditure vouchers provided by the Irrigation Supervisors to adjust the imprest within the financial year 2018-19. As soon as the petitioner emerged from the shock of the tragedy, he submitted those vouchers to the Executive Engineer, Saryu Canal Division-I, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar. He submitted the expenditure along with bill vouchers for the imprest of Rs.2 lacs on 12.10.2018 within the same financial year. It was submitted in the prescribed format along with bill vouchers to the Executive Engineer. Next, he submitted bill vouchers along with the expenditure bill for the sum of Rs.1 lac advanced followed by bill vouchers and the bill for the imprest of Rs.5 lacs. The bill vouchers for the sum of Rs.1 lac and Rs.5 lacs were submitted on 16.03.2021 and 23.03.2020, respectively.
3. The case of the petitioner is that despite submission of the bill vouchers and the utilization bills, the imprest is not being adjusted by the respondents in the accounts of the Project with the result that it would show the said sum of money outstanding against the petitioner, when he retires. This would prejudice him in the settlement of his retirement claims and payment of post retiral dues. He has represented in the matter a number of times over to the fourth respondent, but to no avail. The petitioner has prayed that a mandamus be issued, directing the Executive Engineer, Saryu Canal Division-I, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar to adjust the advance imprest sanctioned in his name for purchasing land for the Canal Division's Project.
4. A notice of motion was issued on 21.08.2024, in response whereto, a personal affidavit was filed by the Executive Engineer, Saryu Canal Division, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar. The petitioner has filed a reply to the personal affidavit. These two affidavits were found by this Court and the parties sufficient pleading to hear the petition finally. Accordingly, on 04.10.2024 the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.
5. Heard Mr. B.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State.
6. The Executive Engineer acknowledges sanction of advance imprest or miscellaneous advance of Rs.2 lacs for the purchase of land to construct the Sahjanwa Rajwaha Canal on 31.07.2018. He similarly acknowledges the sanction of advance of Rs.1 lac on 04.09.2018 in accordance with the petitioner's demand for purchase of land meant for construction of the Baidauli Minor Canal and Rs.5 lacs on 26.09.2018 for the purchase of land also meant for construction of a canal. The Executive Engineer says that a total advance imprest of Rs.8 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for the execution of these government works. He says that bills and vouchers were not submitted by the petitioner for adjustment until the end of the financial year 2018-19, leading to the said sums of money remaining unadjusted. He points out that a letter dated 17.12.2019 and 18.02.2020 was issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner, asking the petitioner to submit the necessary bills and vouchers to ensure adjustment of the advance.
7. The stand then taken is that the Divisional Office by their letter dated 12.10.2018 said that an amount of Rs.2 lacs has been submitted for adjustment along with 153 passed vouchers while the petitioner, as per Form-2 of the Imprest Cash Account on pages 20, 21, and 22 of the writ petition, had submitted 118 vouchers for adjustment on 10.05.2018. The stand taken is that according to the relevant rules and regulations, all vouchers submitted for adjustment should pertain to the period after 19.08.2018 and relate to land purchase for canal construction. The vouchers submitted by the petitioner are not valid for adjustment. As regards the advance of Rs.1 lac, the Divisional Office by letter No.103 dated 30.08.2019 pointed out that 77 passed vouchers were submitted for adjustment, but there was discrepancy in the number and date of these vouchers. The petitioner's claim has been denied as baseless. As regards, the sum of Rs.5 lacs advanced, the Executive Engineer says that the Divisional Office vide letter dated 23.03.2020 have said that the 234 passed vouchers submitted along with Form-2 of the Imprest Cash Account should have been submitted before March, 2019. It is, therefore, the fourth respondent's case that the petitioner showed no interest in adjusting the permanent/ miscellaneous advance. It is also said that currently it is not possible to make adjustment due to unavailability of an additional budget for adjustment of permanent advance/ miscellaneous advance. The petitioner should have submitted to the Division by end of the financial year all his vouchers. The budget has lapsed and the adjustment would not be possible and the said amount would remain unadjusted as a miscellaneous advance. It is also said that for the petitioner's failure to submit the vouchers within the stipulated time, the adjustment of the miscellaneous advance could not be completed. The budget having lapsed, there are no funds available to adjust it. It is then said that as per government regulations funds are allocated for the same financial year, and if the amount is not spent or adjusted within that period, the budget lapses.
8. The further stand taken is that at present, there is no budget under the land compensation head and there are several discrepancies in the vouchers submitted by the petitioner. The revised cost estimate of Rs.10,19,803.88 for execution of the Saryu Canal National Project-IV and for land compensation was approved by the Expenditure Finance Committee in its meeting dated 09.04.2024, which is yet to be approved by the Cabinet. It is only after approval by the Cabinet that the budgetary provision can be had. The matter will be resolved after receipt of budgetary provision and the three miscellaneous advances given to the petitioner adjusted accordingly. It is also the fourth respondent's stand that in the last financial year 2023-24 for the early resolution of this matter, the fourth respondent requested a sum of Rs.189.37 lacs for land acquisition under the Saryu Canal Project vide letter dated 25.01.2023, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Basti, but due to non-availability of budgetary provision, the matter could not be settled. The fourth respondent has blamed the petitioner for his failure to submit the required vouchers within the stipulated time and cited administrative difficulties, hindering timely adjustment of the advance imprest.
9. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of opinion that while it may or may not be true that the vouchers submitted by the petitioner, showing utilization of the advance imprest are not valid under the head that the miscellaneous advance was sanctioned, it is an extraordinary situation, where the petitioner faced grave difficulties on account of his son's serious ailment leading to his death that he could not submit all the requisite vouchers for the total advance imprest within the relevant financial year. So far as the advance imprest of Rs.2 lac is concerned, it was certainly submitted to the Executive Engineer within the relevant financial year. The fact that for the other two advance imprest, the budget has lapsed, may be an administrative constraint for the respondents establishment, but that cannot be permitted to defeat the petitioner's claim. The reason is that if money advanced has been spent by the petitioner on account of the respondents project, a non-adjustment of the advance, if permitted on ground that the budget has lapsed, would lead to the expenditure being shouldered by the petitioner, when he retires. The miscellaneous advance or the advance imprest would show as an outstanding against him and adjusted out of his post retiral benefits. While the respondents would have benefited from the expenditure of the advance imprest for their project, the petitioner would be virtually robbed of the said amount and made to pay for something that the respondents have acquired out of the money spent through the petitioner's hands. This would constitute an utter unjust enrichment of the respondents at the petitioner's cost. The constraints of budgetary allocations cannot work to defeat legal rights of parties - even of employees entrusted with the miscellaneous advance - who then stand as claimants of money that they have spent for the respondents by their hand. The stand of the respondents that they cannot adjust the advance imprest is, therefore, rejected. At the same time, the other objection put forth by the respondents that the petitioner has not submitted all vouchers that are relevant to the purpose, for which advance imprest was given, is a matter which has to be accounted for by the petitioner and settled with the respondents. If there is any deviation in expenditure of the advance imprest, the petitioner may have to explain it. If the deviation is with the permission of the respondents, the permission would estop the respondents as far as the petitioner's claim goes. If not, the petitioner may have to supply the necessary vouchers or else bear the loss. However, all valid vouchers would have to be immediately accepted and accounted for.
10. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to adjust the petitioner's advance imprest in the sums of Rs.2 lacs, Rs.1 lac and Rs.5 lacs, totaling a figure of Rs.8 lacs against valid vouchers submitted and give valid acquittance to the petitioner for the amounts of advance adjusted. If there are any vouchers that are not admissible for adjustment or cannot be adjusted, the respondents shall call upon the petitioner to submit the relevant vouchers within a month and then proceed to make the necessary adjustment. Else, the petitioner and the respondents would work out their rights and liabilities together. It is, however, expected that if the sum of money, subject matter of the advance imprest, even if not supported by a voucher relating to relevant expenditure, has in fact been spent for the respondents establishment through the petitioner's hands, the respondents would suitably adjust the expenditure and not unjustly enrich themselves at the petitioner's expense.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Engineer, Saryu Project-II, Gonda, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Construction Division, Basti and the Executive Engineer, Saryu Canal Division-I, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar.
Order Date :- 24.3.2025
Anoop
(J.J. Munir)
Judge
