Suleman vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7425 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Suleman vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi ... on 29 May, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32866
 
Court No. - 3
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5976 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Suleman
 
Respondent :- Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Srivastava,Avadhesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Naresh Chandra Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

Heard Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice for opposite party nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned Advocate, however, vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 4 has been filed by Sri Ajeet Pratap Singh and the same is taken on record.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned letter of the secretary, K.U.M.S. Sidhauli to the secretary K.U.M.S., Hargaon dated 16.1.2025 for recovery/ adjustment of Rs.6,37,789.00, from the amount payable as gratuity, annexed as annexure-1 and letter dated 19.4.2025 of the secretary K.U.M.S., Hargaon to the petitioner to get audit objection removed in 3 days annexed as Annexure no. 2, and in furtherance of it deduction of the said amount by letter dated 5.5.2025 annexed as annexure 3 to the writ petition all being illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the illegally deducted/recovered amount of gratuity, from the sanctioned amount, to the petitioner with interest of 12% per annum."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no amount of recovery may be withdrawn or adjusted from the amount of gratuity as the law is settled on the point that no recovery may be executed from the amount of gratuity.

Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgement and order dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 10629 of 2024, which reads as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

3. With the consent of the parties concerned, the matter is being finally decided.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 01.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, issued by the Accounts and Audit Officer for adjustment of an amount of Rs.13,35,388/- from the amount payable as gratuity to the petitioner.

5. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the husband of the petitioner namely Shri Achchhe Lal was working as a Mandi Inspector when he died in harness on 07.09.2020. Subsequent to his death, no gratuity was paid to the petitioner.

7. Upon the petitioner staking her claim for being paid the gratuity, the order impugned dated 01.09.2023 has been issued whereby it has been indicated that an amount of Rs.13,35,388/- is to be recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner and after adjustment of the aforesaid amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner, which would be Rs.11,13,520/-, a further sum of Rs.2,21,868/- is to be paid by the petitioner.

8. The Court had required Shri Aditya Mohan to seek instructions as to to whether any opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the husband of the petitioner at the time when he was in service on the basis of the said audit objections.

9. Shri Mohan, on the basis of instructions sent by the Mandi Secretary, Sidhauli, Sitapur dated 06.02.2025, fairly states that no opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the husband of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid audit objections.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a perusal of the audit objections, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 7 to the petition, would indicate that although an amount of Rs.22,71,460/- has been quantified but no particular liability of any employee whatsoever including the husband of the petitioner namely Shri Achchhe Lal has been fixed and as such, it is not known as to how the respondents have arrived at the figure of Rs.13,35,388/- which is to be recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner.

11. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench's judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No.414 of 2023 in Re: State Agricultural Produce Markets Board U.P. and Others vs. Meera Srivastava decided on 16.06.2023.

12. It is contended that the Court has specifically gone into the aspect as to the arrival of an amount by the audit, which was said to be payable by the employee concerned, and this Court, after examining the said inquiry report, was of the view that no material had been brought on record to indicate as to how the aforesaid figures have been arrived at and how the liability have been apportioned amongst the husband of the respondent and the other employees.

13. The Division Bench has also gone into the aspect with regard to absence of any statutory provision which confers powers on the Board to have initiated the exercise of holding an inquiry after the retirement of the deceased employee.

14. The instant case stands on a better footing inasmuch as, as already indicated above, the audit report is completely silent regarding the apportionment of the liability amongst the employees of the Mandi Parishad including the husband of the petitioner. The audit report pertains to the year 2012-13 while the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 07.09.2020 yet for a period of almost seven years i.e. from the date of the said audit report till the petitioner's husband continued to work in the Mandi Parishad, no notice was ever issued to him with regard to the said audit report and neither was he accorded any opportunity of hearing as has been fairly stated by Shri Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the basis of instructions.

15. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 01.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of gratuity due to the petitioner, which is Rs.11,13,520/- along with admissible interest from the date the gratuity fell due till the date of actual payment.

16. Let this order be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.. "

In the aforesaid case, some amount has been recovered/adjusted from the gratuity of the petitioner of that writ petition. In the aforesaid judgement, the decision of Division Bench has been referred. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed at the admission stage quashing the impugned order directing the authorities to return the amount which has been recovered/adjusted.

Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed on the fact that the present matter is similar to the aforesaid matter. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgement and order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 10629 of 2024, Manju Vs. Director Admn. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko and 5 Others.

The respondents are directed the pay the amount of gratuity, i.e., Rs.6,37,789.00/- to the petitioner which has been recovered/adjusted from the amount of gratuity, with expedition, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the reciept of certified copy of the order of this Court, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for the interest on the delayed payment.

The writ petition is allowed.

No order as to cost.

Order Date :- 29.5.2025

Anurag