# Mritunjai Singh v. State of U.P., AIR

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 218
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-02-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48666 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mritunjai-singh-v-state-of-u-p-air-41842
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Alternative
Remedy-Cancellation of license of Light
Diesel Oil-Such order applicable under
Para 9 of the Control Order 1981 itselfwithout
availing
statuary
remedydirectly writ Petition not maintainable-if
appeal filed within one month-same be
decided within 2 month thereafter.

## Text

218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48666 of 2008

Subash Tiwari

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Tripathi
Sri A.D. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Annual
increment-withheld due to pendency of
criminal case-fair acquittal-even than
increments not released for the last 25
years-held-wholly arbitrary and illegaleven
on
pendency
of
criminal
proceedings annual increment cannot
be withheld-direction to pay entire
amount with 10% interest with cost of
Rs.20,000.

Held: para 8

In view of the above, denial of annual
increments to the petitioner for the
last more than 25 years and more
merely on one or the other pretext
firstly;
suspension
and
secondly;
pendency of criminal case is wholly
arbitrary and illegal.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1971 Allahabad 214

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has sought a
mandamus commanding the respondents to
grant annual increments to him which have
not been allowed since 1986.

3. The petitioner was placed under
suspension
on
28.11.1986
in
a
contemplated departmental enquiry. It is
said that no departmental enquiry was
initiated at all but by order dated 16th July,
1992, Senior Superintendent of Police,
Azamgarh
reinstated
the
petitioner
observing that he was placed under
suspension being implicated in a criminal
case. It is interesting to notice that order of
suspension nowhere mention the pendency
of criminal case but clearly says that
departmental enquiry is contemplated
hence the petitioner is placed under
suspension.
Thereafter
the
petitioner
appears
to
have
made
several
representations to the authorities concerned
about his increments and the matter
remains pending between authorities hence
this writ petition.

4.

In
the
counter
affidavit,
respondents have taken stand that since
petitioner was involved in a Criminal Case
No.303 of 1986 (S.T. No.3807 of 1991)
under Sections 467, 468, 420 I.P.C. read
with Section 82/83 Registry Act in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria
hence no decision was taken with respect
to grant of increment in his matter and the
same would be decided after decision in
the aforesaid criminal case.

5. Mere pendency of a criminal case
cannot justify withholding of increments
unless
specific
order
is
passed
in
accordance with law to this effect.

6. Learned Standing Counsel failed
to point out any provision under which
annual increments can be denied to a
Government servant on account of mere
1 All] M/S Vindhya Oil Traders V. State of U.P. and others
219
 pendency of criminal case. Even during
the pendency of suspension, increment
could not have been withheld. This
question has been decided by this Court in
Mritunjai Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR
1971 Allahabad 214 and in para 14 of the
judgment this Court has said as under:

"Rule 24 of the Financial Hand Book
Volume II issued under the authority of the
Government of the Uttar Pradesh in
Chapter IV Part II provides that an
increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a
matter of course unless it is withheld. An
increment may be withheld from a
government servant by the Government or
by any authority to whom the Government
may delegate this power under rule 6, if his
conduct has not been good or his work has
not been satisfactory. In ordering the
withholding
of
an
increment,
the
withholding authority shall state the period
for which it is withheld, and whether the
postponement shall have the effect of
postponing future increments. As the
contract of the service of the petitioner
continued even though he was under
suspension, the increment should be
allowed ordinarily to be drawn unless it is
withheld in the manner provided under
Rule 25. As it is not the case of the
opposite parties that it has been so
withheld, the petitioner is entitled to the
increments during the pendency of his
suspension and the subsistence allowance
shall be calculated accordingly, it being
1/3rd of the pay plus dearness allowance."

7. Moreover, the aforesaid criminal
case has already resulted in acquittal of
petitioner vide judgment dated 23rd
November, 2010.

8. In view of the above, denial of
annual increments to the petitioner for the
last more than 25 years and more merely
on one or the other pretext firstly;
suspension and secondly; pendency of
criminal case is wholly arbitrary and
illegal.

9. The writ petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to allow annual
increments to the petitioner since fell due
and to pays arrears of salary accordingly
within two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall also be paid interest on
arrears of salary @ 10% from the date of
filing of writ petition till the amount is
actually paid. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to cost which is quantified to
Rs.20,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56149 of 2010

M/S Vindhya Oil Traders
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Alternative
Remedy-Cancellation of license of Light
Diesel Oil-Such order applicable under
Para 9 of the Control Order 1981 itselfwithout
availing
statuary
remedydirectly writ Petition not maintainable-if
appeal filed within one month-same be
decided within 2 month thereafter.