Radhey Shyam Shukla vs Administrative Committee Cooperative ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 506 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Radhey Shyam Shukla vs Administrative Committee Cooperative ... on 2 May, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25614
 
Court No. - 3
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2000461 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Shukla
 
Respondent :- Administrative Committee Cooperative Banks Centralised Servi
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Sanjay Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Yadav,Ram Singh,Suresh Chandra Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.3 and Sri Ram Singh, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.5.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and no request for adjournment has been made, so considering the fact that this writ petition is of the year 2015 and petitioner is a very old aged retired person of 82 years, I hereby proceed to decide this petition finally on the basis of material available on record and hearing the learned counsels for parties present before the Court.

3. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09.10.2013, order dated 08.03.2008 and 07.09.2006 passed by the opposite parties contained as Annexure No. 1 to 3 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay 10% interest on the post retiral benefits and on the arrears of salary of the petitioner payable from 27.10.1994 to 18.08.1999 and from 04.07.2000 to 20.11.2001 (for about 73 months) to the petitioner from j08.05.2002 when Special Leave Petition filed by respondents, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 passed by this Hon'ble Court quashing the order of dismissal of petitioner and directing the respondent to pay all consequential benefits, was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to adjust all the advances/loans taken by the petitioner from the opposite parties as on 08.05.2002 from the post retiral benefits and arrears of salary of the petitioner as on 08.05.2002 and to pay the petitioner remaining amount with interest of 10% per annum.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the opposite parties to charge penal interest on the advances/loans taken by the petitioner from the opposite parties and further restrain the opposite parties to charge any interest on unpaid loan amount after 08.05.2002."

4. This is a peculiar case, where the petitioner, when he was in service, took lone to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- in the year 1994, and after his retirement on 31.07.2001 instead of paying his post retiral dues, sum of Rs.16 lacs approx (clear calculation is not available as the exact amount has not been indicated in any of the affidavits filed by the opposite parties) have be allegedly adjusted against the loan amount and he has been paid only Rs.75,405/- on 09.10.2013 in the name of post retiral dues. Further, no reason of any kind whatsoever has been disclosed as to why he has not been paid his post retiral dues at the time of his retirement on 31.07.2001.

5. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1994, the petitioner was posted as Secretary-cum-General Manager in the District Cooperative Bank, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as D.C.B. Jhansi). The petitioner took loan from D.C.B. Jhansi. The segregation of the aforesaid loan is that the petitioner took loan to the tune of Rs.1,91,000/- as home loan on 14.02.1994; took personal loan to the tune of Rs.30,000/- on 12.10.1994 and further personal loan to the tune of Rs.30,000/- on 18.10.1994, therefore the total loan amount would be Rs.2,51,000/-. The aforesaid loan was repayable from the salary of the petitioner as the aforesaid loan along with interest would be payable till the retirement of the petitioner and if the loan amount could not be repaid, the same could be repaid from his post retiral dues.

6. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the counsel for the respondent-Bank are able to apprise the Court about the rate of interest on the loan amount. Even, no such rate of interest has been indicated in any of the counter affidavits filed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and 5. One departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner in the year 1994 and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 27.10 1994. The petitioner assailed the dismissal order by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.90 (S/B) of 1995. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 18.08.1999 quashing the dismissal order dated 27.10.1994 with all consequential benefits, however, the respondents were granted opportunity to proceed afresh against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 18.08.1999, the petitioner reinstated in service. However, pursuant to the denovo inquiry the petitioner was again dismissed from service on 04.07.2000. Challenging the dismissal order dated 04.07.2000, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.1136 (S/B) of 2000, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2001, impugned punishment order was quashed with all consequential benefits. However, in the meantime, the petitioner retired from service attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2001. Challenging the order dated 20.11.2001, the Special Leave Petition No. 3901 of 2002 has been filed before the Apex Court by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.05.2002.

8. After the retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2001 and also after the writ petition having been allowed by this Court on 20.11.2001, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 30.11.2001 to the competent authorities demanding his all post retiral dues but to no avail. After dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 08.05.2002, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 27.08.2002 and 05.11.2007 for payment of his post retiral dues. When the post retiral dues were not paid, the petitioner again approach this Court by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.1530 (S/B) of 2008 and the aforesaid writ petition was decided finally vide judgment and order dated 01.07.2013 (Annexure-16). The judgment and order dated 01.07.2013 reads as under:

" Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudeep Seth and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. R.K. Dwivedi, holding brief for Mr. B.L. Verma appears for the opposite party No.4.

The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2001. However, before attaining the age of superannuation, on account of certain mis-conduct, he was dismissed from service by order dated 27.10.1994. The order of dismissal was subject matter of dispute before a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.90(S/B) of 1995. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 18.8.1999 giving liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the order of dismissal was quashed on account of procedural illegality. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority proceeded afresh and again dismissed the petitioner from service on account of mis-conduct. Subsequent order of dismissal dated 4.7.2000 was subject matter of dispute in another writ petition No.1136(S/B) of 2000. Subsequent writ petition was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 20.11.2001, operative portion of which is reproduced as under :

"For the reasons given above and following the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court the impugned dismissal order dated 4.7.2000 is quashed. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

The petitioner will get all consequential benefits which were directed to be given by this Court by the judgment dated 18.8.1999. "

In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the petitioner has moved the respondents for payment of post-retiral dues which includes gratuity, leave encashment, CPF etc. According to learned counsel for the respondents, outstanding post retiral dues against the petitioner was Rs.5,68,478/- which was adjusted in lieu of loan taken by the petitioner.

Admittedly, the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.2,60,000/- in the year 1994. The petitioner has failed to pay the loan taken from the department, which was liable to be deducted from monthly salary of the petitioner, because of dismissal from service. According to Mr. Sudeep Seth, outstanding dues against the petitioner as on 30.9.2012 is Rs.1,98,410/- as conveyed by the authorities. Submission is that the petitioner is liable to pay outstanding dues against advance given in the year 1994.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Apex Court judgment, reported in Dr. Uma Agrawal versus State of U.P. 1999(2) UPLBEC 1006 as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2009(27) LCD 1605 Ramawati Devi versus State of U.P. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by this Court that in the event of delayed payment of post-retiral dues, the employee shall be entitled for payment of interest.

The argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel seems to carry force to the extent that the post-retiral dues should have been paid immediately in pursuance to the judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 (supra).

Admittedly, the post retiral dues was calculated and adjusted against outstanding dues in the year 2007. However, CPF has been paid in its entirety to the petitioner. Keeping in view delay of six years in finalising the payment of post-retiral dues, there appears to be no room of doubt that the petitioner is entitled for interest in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Agarwal, followed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramawati Devi (supra).

In view of above, it shall be appropriate for the respondents to calculate the interest in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Agarwal which has been followed by this Court in the case of Ramawati Devi (supra) and pay the same. However, payment of interest to the petitioner shall be subject to adjustment of pending outstanding dues in lieu of loan taken in the year 1994. Let a decision be taken by the respondents/ competent authority in the light of the observation made hereinabove with regard to interest and outstanding dues, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and be communicated to the petitioner. While adjusting the amount, the respondents shall also take into account that the petitioner had taken loan only to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- and how and in what manner, the outstanding dues comes to Rs.11 lacs and odd. With regard to outstanding dues, decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law and agreement, if any. It shall be open for the petitioner to represent his cause afresh within two weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."

9. After receiving certified copy of the judgment and order dated 01.07.2013, the petitioner produced the order before the competent authorities and the Member Secretary, Cadre Authority, Cooperative Banks Centralized Services U.P. passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2013. Since the petitioner retired from the post of Secretary-cum- Manager of the D.C.B. Jhansi therefore, competent authority to take appropriate decision is opposite party No.2.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgement and order dated 01.07.2013 has categorically directed that while adjusting the amount, the respondents shall also take into account that the petitioner had taken loan only to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- and how and in what manner, that outstanding dues comes to Rs. 11 lacs and odd. The opposite party No.2 took note of the aforesaid observation in the impugned order dated 09.10.2013, but no calculation of any kind whatsoever has been given in the impugned order.

11. From perusal of the impugned order, it may not be understood that as to how loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- raised up to Rs. 11 lacs and odd till 2008, even rate of interest on the loan amount has not been indicated. The condition of repayment of loan has not been indicated to understand as to whether the petitioner has been charged compounding interest. As a matter of fact, no material or detail has been indicated by the opposite party No.2 in compliance of the judgement and order dated 01.07.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court, which may not be appreciated.

12. In the impugned order one more relevant fact has not been considered that if the petitioner retired on 31.07.2001 as to why he has not been given his post retiral dues. Even the post retiral dues of the petitioner have not been calculated in the impugned order as if there were no post retiral dues. The post retiral dues are only the source of income of the retired employee and his family and non-payment of that dues is absolutely unwarranted, uncalled for and violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

13. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure- 17, which is a true copy of representation of the petitioner dated 08.07.2010, wherein one letter dated 19.10.2012 has been enclosed issued by the Secretary-cum-General Manager, D.C.B. Jhansi to Additional Secretary, Cooperative Bank Centralized Services U.P. which reads that bank has indicated the dues which are outstanding upon the petitioner but no detail has been indicated about retiral dues which should be paid to the petitioner.

14. In the aforesaid chart, the arrears of salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.10.1994 to 30.09.1999 have been indicated but the arrears of salary w.e.f. 04.07.2000 to 31.07.2001 i.e. from the date of dismissal to the retirement has not been indicated. The manner and method of that calculation has also not been indicated; even the rate of interest charged from the petitioner has not been indicated, therefore, it is clear that the impugned order dated 09.10.2013 as well as letter dated 09.10.2012 issued by the Bank are unwarranted and misconceived, issued to came prejudice to the petitioner for no cogent reasons.

15. The arrears of salary w.e.f. 30.10.1994 to 30.09.1999 comes around Rs.9,79,244/- and that amount has admittedly been adjusted from the loan amount. The amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.2,70,963/- and leave encashment amount Rs.1,31,376/- (Total Rs.4,02,339/-) and interest thereof to the tune of Rs.2,92,254/- have also been adjusted from the petitioner paying him only a sum of Rs.75,405/-, therefore, against loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- approx, a sum of Rs.15,48,432/- have been adjusted from the petitioner without providing calculation thereof in the teeth of judgment and order dated 01.07.2013 passed by Division Bench of this Court.

16. Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.5 tried to defend the letter of the bank dated 09.10.2012 (supra) but he has submitted that he cannot explain the impugned order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the opposite party No.2.

17. Learned Standing counsel as stated that he cannot defend the aforesaid impugned order as he has appeared only on behalf of opposite party No.3 i.e. Registrar, Cooperative Society, U.P. Lucknow.

18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and also considering the fact that the present petitioner is presently aged about 82 years and as per counsel for the petitioner he is suffering from so may age related ailments, I hereby dispose of this petition finally.

19. Undisputedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2001 having unblemished service record inasmuch as two dismissal orders dated 27.10.1994 and 04.07.2000 have been set-aside/quashed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.08.1999 and 20.11.2001 respectively as both the writ petitions were allowed with all consequential service benefits. The judgement and order dated 20.11.2001 attained finality up to the Apex Court inasmuch as the Special Leave Petition challenging the judgement and order dated 20.11.2001 was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 08.05.2002. Therefore, immediately after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2001, he must have been paid his all post retiral dues and while making the payment of his post retiral dues any outstanding dues relating to loan amount could have been adjusted as per terms and condition of the loan agreement. But admittedly, no post retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner till date.

20. Despite noticing the fact that the Division Bench of this Court had shown its surprise as to how a loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- raised up to Rs. 11 lacs and odd in the year 2008 directed the competent authorities to consider this aspect carefully but in the impugned order dated 09.10.2013 no material or calculation has been shown to understand as to how a loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- raised up to Rs. 11 lacs and odd. As a matter of fact, a sum of Rs.15,48,432/- subject to verification, have been adjusted from the petitioner paying him only a sum of Rs.75,405/-.

21. Notably, neither in the letter dated 19.10.2012 (supra) of the D.C.B. Jhansi nor in the impugned order dated 09.10.2013, the amount of arrears of salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 04.07.2000 to 31.07.2001 has been indicated, whereas, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2001. Though, the arrears of salary w.e.f. 30.10.1994 to 30.09.1999 have been shown in the letter dated 19.10.2012, but in that letter too the arrears of salary w.e.f. 04.07.2000 to 31.07.2001 has not been indicated. Therefore, it is clear from what has been considered above that the contesting opposite parties are only claiming their own dues against the loan amount without providing proper calculation to that effect but are silent so far as the payment of post retiral dues of the petitioner are concerned.

22. This is a trite law that if any employee is not paid his post retiral dues with expedition without having any cogent reason to that effect, he would be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of post retiral dues.

23. In the present case, though the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner be paid his post retiral dues with effect from the date when the Special Leave Petition of the opposite parties has been rejected, but I am declining that prayer for the simple reason that the employee would be entitled for all service benefits and the consequential benefits thereof with effect from the date when said amount is due and admittedly all post retiral dues should be paid to the petitioner immediately after 31.07.2001 not from the date of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 08.05.2002.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2013 (Annexure-1) passed by opposite party No.2 is hereby set-aside/quashed.

25. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 5 are directed to calculate all post retiral dues of the petitioner including the arrears of salary excluding a sum of Rs.75,405/-, which has already been given to the petitioner and also calculate the interest at the rate of 12%. The interest would be calculated with effect from the date the aforesaid amount was due till date of its actual payment. Thereafter, the total outstanding loan amount would be calculated as per the rate of interest so indicated in the loan agreement and after deducting that loan amount from the amount payable to the petitioner i.e. post retiral dues and arrears of salary. The petitioner shall be paid the remaining amount. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months, from receipt of the certified copy of this order, by making payment of dues to the petitioner, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled for the penal interest at the rate of 15%.

26. It is made clear that whatever calculation has been made earlier, which has been indicated in the letter dated 19.10.2012 of the D.C.B. Jhansi and impugned order dated 09.10.2013, shall be ignored as the exercise for fresh calculation should be taken in terms of this order.

27. The opposite parties are cautioned that while making calculation of the loan amount the earlier direction of the Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 01.07.2013 (supra) would be taken into account which provided that as to how and in what manner outstanding dues relating to loan amount raised so exorbitantly.

28. It is also clarified that the calculation of interest on the loan amount shall be calculated only up to 31.07.2001 inasmuch on 31.07.2001 the petitioner retired from service and at that point of time the entire loan amount could have been adjusted from the post retiral dues and arrears of salary. However, the interest on admissible post retiral dues and arrears of salary would be calculated strictly in terms of the direction given in para 25 of this order.

29. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 2.5.2025

Reena/-

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)