# Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1342
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-17
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pushpa-devi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50047
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Law-order of recovery after the
death of the government employee under
challenge-chargesheet served upon the
husband of the petitioner-death before he
could submit reply to the chargesheetdisciplinary proceedings dropped-recovery
order
making
deduction
in
terminal
benefits-bad in law-no punishment can be
imposed after the death of the employeeimpugned
recovery
quashed-petition
allowed.

HELD:
The Court has taken a very clear cut view that
neither disciplinary proceeding can be initiated,
nor any punishment order can be passed
against a dead person.

The Apex Court is of the firm view that no
disciplinary proceeding can be initiated or
continued against a dead person.

Law is very well settled that, in case inquiry has
not been completed and delinquent employee
dies during the pendency of the inquiry, the
same shall not continued and completed. It is
very surprising that, here, respondents are well
aware of the fact that before submission of reply
of charge sheet, husband of petitioner died and
they have not proceeded to complete the
inquiry.
It
is
only
after
receiving
the
representation dated 21.12.2021 of petitioner in
compliance of order of this Court dated
07.12.2021 passed in Writ A No. 16683 of 2021,
respondent has passed impugned order dated
27.05.2022, which amounts to re-initiation of
departmental proceeding.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2011(2) ADJ 643

## Text

1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44. Let the petitioner's Service Book
be returned to the respondents through Mr.
Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1342
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022

Pushpa Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yashpal Yadav, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Vinayak
Ranjan

Service Law-order of recovery after the
death of the government employee under
challenge-chargesheet served upon the
husband of the petitioner-death before he
could submit reply to the chargesheetdisciplinary proceedings dropped-recovery
order
making
deduction
in
terminal
benefits-bad in law-no punishment can be
imposed after the death of the employeeimpugned
recovery
quashed-petition
allowed.

HELD:
The Court has taken a very clear cut view that
neither disciplinary proceeding can be initiated,
nor any punishment order can be passed
against a dead person.

The Apex Court is of the firm view that no
disciplinary proceeding can be initiated or
continued against a dead person.

Law is very well settled that, in case inquiry has
not been completed and delinquent employee
dies during the pendency of the inquiry, the
same shall not continued and completed. It is
very surprising that, here, respondents are well
aware of the fact that before submission of reply
of charge sheet, husband of petitioner died and
they have not proceeded to complete the
inquiry.
It
is
only
after
receiving
the
representation dated 21.12.2021 of petitioner in
compliance of order of this Court dated
07.12.2021 passed in Writ A No. 16683 of 2021,
respondent has passed impugned order dated
27.05.2022, which amounts to re-initiation of
departmental proceeding.

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2011(2) ADJ 643

2. Gulam Gausul Azam & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. 2014 (5) ADJ 558

3.Durgawati Dubey Vs St. of U.P. & ors., decided
on 08.10.2018, Writ A No. 47122 of 2016

4.Rajkishori Devi Widow(deceased) Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.

5.Hirabhai Bhikanrao Deshmukh Vs St. of Mah.
& anr. (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom

6. Jayanti Devi Vs St. of Bih. & ors. 2001(49)
BLJR 2179

7. A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs U.O.I.
& anr.; Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for the
respondent No. 1 and Sri Vinayak Ranjan,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya
Saran, learned counsel for the respondent
No. 2.
4 All. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1343

2. The case was heard on 17.11.2022
and the Court has passed the following
order:

"Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned
counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted four weeks and no more time to file
counter affidavit.

List this matter on 15.12.2022.

Interim order, if any, is extended
till the next date of listing."

3. Despite order dated 17.11.2022, no
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No. 2 who has passed the
impugned order dated 27.05.2022.

4. In such view of the matter, the
Court proceeded to decide the case on
merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that husband of petitioner was
working on the post of Jr. Engineer. During
his posting at Shamli, a charge sheet dated
23.02.2021 was served upon him, but
before submission of reply to the charge
sheet, he died on 02.05.2021 due to heart
failure (the date of death of husband of
petitioner has been wrongly transcribed as
02.05.2022 in the order of this Court dated
21.09.2022).
Ultimately,
the
inquiry
committee came to the conclusion that as
the husband of petitioner died during the
pendency of the inquiry proceedings,
therefore, it is required on the part of
respondent
authorities
to
drop
the
disciplinary proceedings pending against
him. Relevant paragraph of the same is
being quoted hereinbelow-

"जांच सभिनत का ित है की आरोपी
सेिक स्ि० गुरदयाल भसंह, तत्कालीन अिर
अभियन्ता, अन्तगत विद्युत वितरण खण्डतृतीय,
शािली
सम्प्रनत
अिर
अभियन्ता
अन्तगत विद्युत वितरण खण्ड-द्वितीय, शािली
(ददिंगत) के विरूद्ि अनुशासनात्िक कायतिाही
के लजम्बत रहते हुए ददनांक 02.05.2021 को
स्िगतिास हो जाने के फलस्िरूप शासकीय पत्र
सं० 1301/बी-2/2003-24 ददनांक 26.05.03 के
आलोक िें आरोवपत सेिक को उक्त प्रकरण िें
ककसी िी प्रकार दण्ड देना सम्िि न होने के
दृजष्टगत अनुशासनात्िक कायतिाही सिाप्त
करना विधिक दृजष्ट से उधचत होगा।"

6. After death of the husband of
petitioner, no terminal dues were paid to
her, therefore, she has preferred Writ
Petition No. A16683 of 2021, which was
disposed of on 07.12.2021 with direction to
respondent to take decision upon the
representation of the petitioner dated
21.12.2021. Pursuant to that, representation
of the petitioner was decided and vide
impugned order dated 27.05.2022 Rs.
10,14,594/- was deducted from the retiral
dues of late husband of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that order impugned is absolutely
bad. He further submitted that it is
undisputed that without submitting the
reply to the charge sheet dated 23.02.2021,
husband of petitioner died and considering
this fact, inquiry committee also opined
that disciplinary proceeding should have
been dropped against the petitioner, but
ignoring the recommendation of the inquiry
committee, Rs. 10,14,594/- has been
deducted from the terminal dues of
husband of petitioner as punishment. He
firmly submitted that in light of settled
provision
of
law,
no
disciplinary
proceeding can be continued against a dead
person and, accordingly no punishment can
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be awarded by the way of deduction of any
amount.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in support of his contention, placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in Smt.
Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors. 2011(2) ADJ 643 decided on
07.01.2011, Gulam Gausul Azam and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014
(5) ADJ 558 decided on 12.05.2014, Onkar
Singh Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.
2018 (3) ADJ 272, decided on 09.01.2018,
Writ A No. 40057 of 2013 Durgawati
Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., decided
on 08.10.2018, Writ A No. 47122 of 2016:
Rajkishori Devi Widow(deceased) Vs.
State of U.P. And 4 Ors, decided on
30.07.2019, judgment of Bombay High
Court in the case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao
Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom decided on
10.10.1984, judgment of Jharkhand High
Court in the case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State
of Bihar and Ors. 2001(49) BLJR 2179
decided on 01.05.2001 and judgment of
Apex Court in A.K.S. Rathore (Dead)
Through Lrs. Vs. Union of India & Anr.,
decided on 28.09.2022.

9. In view of the judgment so relied
upon, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in these judgments, the
Courts have considered this issue and came
to the conclusion that against a dead
person, neither disciplinary proceeding can
be initiated, nor any punishment order can
be passed.

10. Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate,
holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 2
could not dispute the factual and legal
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.

11. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the record and judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

12. It is undisputed that husband of
the petitioner died on 02.05.2021 before
submitting the reply of the charge sheet
dated 23.02.2021. It is also undisputed that
impugned recovery order dated 27.05.2022
has been passed after the death of husband
of the petitioner upon the representation of
petitioner dated 21.12.2021.

13. Facts of the case are not disputed,
therefore, on facts, no finding of this Court
is required.

14. So far as legal provisions are
concerned, this issue came up before this
Court in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi
Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011(2) ADJ
643 decided on 07.01.2011, the Court has
held that as soon so as a person dies, he
breaks all his connection with the worldly
affairs,
therefore,
no
disciplinary
proceeding can be initiated against him.
Relevant Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the
judgment are being quoted below:-

"6. Holding of departmental
enquiry and imposition of punishment
contemplates a pre-requisite condition that
the employee concerned, who is to be
proceeded against and is to be punished, is
continuing an employee, meaning thereby
is alive. As soon as a person dies, he breaks
all his connection with the worldly affairs.
It cannot be said that the chain of
employment would still continue to enable
employer to pass an order, punitive in
nature, against the dead employee.

7. It is well settled that a
punishment not prescribed under the rules,
4 All. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1345
as a result of disciplinary proceedings,
cannot be awarded even to the employee
what to say of others. The Court feel pity
on the officers of Nagar Nigam, Bareilly in
continuing with the departmental enquiry
against a person who was already died and
this
information of death
was
well
communicated to the enquiry officer as well
as disciplinary authority. They proceeded
with enquiry and passed impugned orders
against a dead person. This is really height
of ignorance of principles of service laws
and shows total ignorance on the part of
the officers of Nagar Nigam in respect to
the
disciplinary
matters.
This
Court
expresses its displeasure with such state of
affairs and such a level of unawareness on
the part of the respondents who are
responsible in establishment matters. They
have to be condemned in strong words for
their total lack of knowledge of such
administrative matters on account whereof
legal heirs of poor deceased employee have
suffered."

15. Again this issue came before this
Court in the matter of Gulam Gausul Azam
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
2014 (5) ADJ 558 decided on 12.05.2014,
the Court has held held that before
disciplinary authority could pass any order
on the inquiry report, petitioner died ending
the
master
and
servant
relationship,
therefore, no punishment order can be
passed. Relevant paragraph Nos. 10 to 13
of the judgment are being quoted below:-

"10. There is another aspect of
the matter. In the present case Abdul
Kareem expired on 15.7.2011, i.e. before
the disciplinary authority could pass any
order on the enquiry report dated 3.7.2011.
In the circumstances therefore, the master
and servant relationship between Late
Abdul Kareem and the respondents also
came to an end with his death and
therefore, the impugned order dated
21.11.2011 could not have been passed
after the death of Abdul Kareem.

11. In my opinion therefore the
disciplinary authority could not have
passed
the
order
dated
21.11.2011
withholding the retiral dues and other
benefits of late Abdul Kareem. When Abdul
Kareem died on 15.7.2011 he could not
have been said to be a government servant
thereafter and therefore the order dated
21.11.2011 on the face of it is a wholly
illegal and arbitrary order and has no
basis in law and cannot survive.

12. So far as the matter of
compassionate
appointment
of
the
petitioner no. 1 is concerned, for the same
reasons
that
since
the
disciplinary
authority has not taken any decision
regarding the finding of guilt against late
Abdul Kareem prior to his death, it could
not be said that the charge had been
established against late Abdul Kareem as
disciplinary proceedings are concluded
only with the passing of the order of
disciplinary authority and not when the
enquiry officer submits his report.

13. In this view of the matter, the
writ petition is allowed and both the
impugned orders dated 21.11.2011 and
1.3.2012 are quashed. The respondents are
directed to take steps for payment of all
retiral benefits to the legal heirs of late
Abdul Kareem. So far as the order dated
1.3.2012 regarding rejection of the claim of
petitioner
no
.1
for
compassionate
appointment is concerned, a direction is
issued to the District Magistrate, Deoriarespondent no. 3 to take a decision afresh
in this regard having regard to the
educational qualification of the petitioner
no. 1 and availability of vacancy within a
period of two months from the date a
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certified copy of this order is received in
his office."

16. In the matter of Onkar Singh
Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2018
(3) ADJ 272, decided on 09.01.2018, the
court has again considered this issue and
the relevant paragraph of the judgment is
quoted below:-

"Finally, the petitioner has died
on 14.03.2017, during the pendency of this
writ petition and therefore, even if, there
had been any power in the rules vested in
respondent no.2 to conduct enquiry against
the petitioner after superannuation, now it
would not have been possible for him to
conduct
any
enquiry.
Therefore,
the
impugned order dated 21.09.2016, passed
by respondent no.2, Secretary/General
Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Etah, whereby, recovery of certain amounts
have been directed against the petitioner
from his gratuity, after his retirement from
service is hereby quashed. The respondent
no.2 is directed to release the amount of
gratuity of the petitioner, by applying new
pay scale, along with 7% simple interest
for inordinate delay in making payment
of the same to the petitioner from the date
of his superannuation on 30.06.2013. The
writ petition is allowed. No order as to
costs."

17. In the aforesaid matter, the
petitioner died on 14.03.2017 during the
pendency of writ petition, therefore, the
Court has held that even there had been
any power in the rules vested to
respondent No. 2 to conduct the inquiry
after superannuation, now it would not
have been possible for him to conduct
inquiry and quashed the order impugned
with direction to release the amount of
gratuity.

18. Similar matter was also for
consideration before the Bombay High
Court in the case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao
Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom decided on
10.10.1984, the Court has clearly held that
provision with regard to dismissal, removal
and suspension of the civil servant do not
permit holding of any further enquiry into
the conduct of such a civil servant after his
death. Relevant Paragraph No. 6 of the
judgment is being quoted below:-

"6. The provisions with regard to
dismissal, removal and suspension of the
civil servant do not permit holding of any
further enquiry into the conduct of such a
civil
servant
after
his
death.
Such
proceedings
are
intended
to
impose
departmental penalty and would abate by
reason of the death of civil servant. The
purpose of proceedings is to impose
penalty, if misconduct is established
against the civil servant. That can only be
achieved if the civil servant continues to be
in
service.
Upon
broader
view
the
proceedings are quasi-criminal in the sense
it can result in fault finding and further
imposition of penalty. The character of
such proceedings has to be treated as
quasi-judicial for this purpose. In the light
of the character of the proceedings and the
nature of penalty like dismissal or removal,
or any other penalties, minor or major, it
has nexus to the contract of service.
Therefore,
if
the
person
who
has
undertaken that contract is not available, it
should follow that no proceedings can
continue. Thus when the proceedings are
quite personal in relation to such a
contract of service, the same should
terminate upon death of the delinquent. By
reason of death, such proceedings would
terminate and abate. We think that such a
result is also inferable from the provisions
4 All. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1347
of Rule 152-B of the Bombay Civil Services
Rules."

19. Similar dispute has also come
before the Jharkhand High Court in the
case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. 2001(49) BLJR 2179 decided on
01.05.2001, the Court after following the
decision of Bombay High Court had taken
the same view and directed the respondents
to pay all post retiral benefits to the widow.
Relevant Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the
judgment are being quoted below:-

"9. In the instant case admittedly
the delinquent- employee died on 24.3.1999
and the Enquiry Officer submitted his
report on 30.8.1999. In the enquiry report
(Annexure F) the Enquiry Officer took
notice of the fact that the delinquentemployee died on 24.3.1999. The Enquiry
Officer further took notice of the fact that
the delinquent-employee had requested the
respondents to keep the departmental
proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of
the case pending before him. However, the
Enquiry
Officer
after
the
death
of
delinquent employee called upon the
respondents and on the basis of documents
produced by them submitted enquiry report
and on the basis of that report a formal
order of dismissal was passed. In my
opinion therefore the manner in which
respondents
proceeded
with
the
departmental
proceeding
against
the
delinquent- employee, the enquiry report as
well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in
law and is null and void. I am, further of
the view that the widow of the deceased
employee cannot be deprived of her
legitimate claim of death-cum-retirement
benefits on the ground of dismissal of the
employee on the basis of departmental
proceeding initiated after 6 years of the
order of suspension and that to on the basis
of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry
Officer after proceeding ex parte against
the deceased-employee who died much
before the date when the Enquiry Officer
proceeded with the matter and submitted
his report.

10. For the reasons aforesaid,
this writ application is allowed and the
respondents are directed to release all the
death-cum-retirement dues in favour of the
petitioner, who is widow of the deceased
employee as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of 30 days from
the date of receipt/production of copy of
this order."

20. In the matter of Durgawati Dubey
(Supra), decided on 08.10.2018, same issue
was considered, and the Court has held as
under:

"After
going
through
the
judgments and facts of the case, this Court
is of the view that against a dead person,
neither disciplinary proceeding can be
initiated nor any punishment order can be
passed. In the present case, facts are not
disputed that disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against husband of petitioner after
his
death,
which
suffers
from
non
application of mind as well as contrary to
the law laid down by this Court as well as
other High Courts, therefore, the impugned
order dated 10.06.2013 is not sustainable
and is hereby quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs."

21. The Court has taken a very clear
cut
view
that
neither
disciplinary
proceeding can be initiated, nor any
punishment order can be passed against a
dead person.
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. This Court vide judgment and
order dated 30.07.2019 in Writ A No.
47122
of
2016:
Rajkishori
Devi
Widow(deceased) Vs. State of U.P. And 4
Ors. has again decided the same issue and
held as under:

"It
follows
that
punishment
provided under the Disciplinary Rules can
be imposed upon the government servant
and not on the family member of the
government servant. As soon as an
incumbent ceases to be a government
servant upon death, no penalty under the
rules could have been imposed upon him.
That being so, the question of passing an
order, which may have the effect of
punishing legal heirs of the deceased
employee would not arise. In the facts of
the instant case, disciplinary proceeding
was
initiated
against
the
employee
immediately before his retirement and
before the disciplinary enquiry could
conclude he died. The disciplinary enquiry,
thereafter, could not have been proceeded
under Section 351A of the Civil Service
Regulations, accordingly, the competent
authority dropped the enquiry. By the
impugned order, recovery was sought to be
made from the post retiral dues from the
legal heir for the misdemeanour and
misconduct of the delinquent employee,
which was not permissible in view of Rule
54-B of the Fundamental Rules.

Learned standing counsel, in
rebuttal, does not dispute the fact that the
enquiry was dropped as the employee died
and the enquiry could not be concluded
before death of the employee. In the
circumstances, no recovery could have
been made from the post retiral dues
without a finding being recorded against
the deceased/employee under the Rules that
he was responsible for having caused loss
to the government.

The order dated 17 June 2016
passed by the second respondent-Finance
Controller and Chief Accounts Officer,
Foods and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, is
unsustainable, accordingly, set aside and
quashed.

The recovered sum of the post
retiral dues shall be released to the
petitioner by the second respondent--
Finance Controller and Chief Accounts
Officer,
Foods
and
Civil
Supplies,
Lucknow, within two months from the date
of filing of certified copy of this order
along with interest @ 7% per annum on the
sum from the date of recovery.

The writ petition stands allowed.

No Cost."

23. Recently, the Apex Court by its
order dated 28.09.2022 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 7028 of 2022: A.K.S. Rathore
(Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Union of India
& Anr. Has considered this issue and has
held as under:

"8. Today even if we dismiss the
above appeal, no final order can be passed
in the disciplinary proceedings, against a
dead person. The disciplinary proceedings
have actually abated. In other words the
dismissal of the above appeal will have the
same consequences as the appeal being
allowed.

9. In view of the above, the above
appeal is disposed of holding that the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against
the original appellant stand abated. As a
consequence, the legal representatives of
the original appellant will be entitled to all
the benefits that the original appellant
would have been entitled to, as per the
rules. The respondents may pass orders in
accordance with the rules, about the
benefits lawfully admissible to the original
appellant and disburse the same within a
4 All. Shri Naunihal Haider Vs. Asst. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Budaun & Ors.
1349
period of 12 weeks. There will be no order
as to costs."

24. The Apex Court is of the firm
view that no disciplinary proceeding can be
initiated or continued against a dead
person.

25. So far as, present case is
concerned,
inquiry
proceeding
was
initiated, charge sheet was issued, but
before submission of reply of the charge
sheet, husband of petitioner died. Inquiry
officer came to the conclusion that, as
husband of petitioner (employee) died
during the pendency of inquiry proceeding,
therefore, it is required on the part of of
disciplinary
authority
to
drop
the
disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, no
further order has been passed upon the
inquiry proceeding. Only after filing of writ
petition by the petitioner, order was passed
to decide the representation of petitioner
dated 21.12.2021, upon which order of
recovery dated 27.05.2022 has been passed
for recovery of amount of Rs. 10,14,594/-.
In fact, it is nothing, but re-initiation of
earlier inquiry, which has not been
completed in light of recommendation
made by the inquiry committee.

26. Law is very well settled that, in
case inquiry has not been completed and
delinquent employee dies during the
pendency of the inquiry, the same shall not
continued and completed. It is very
surprising that, here, respondents are well
aware of the fact that before submission of
reply of charge sheet, husband of petitioner
died and they have not proceeded to
complete the inquiry. It is only after
receiving
the
representation
dated
21.12.2021 of petitioner in compliance of
order of this Court dated 07.12.2021 passed
in Writ A No. 16683 of 2021, respondent
has
passed
impugned
order
dated
27.05.2022, which amounts to re-initiation
of departmental proceeding.

27. Under such circumstances,
passing of impugned order shows that
respondents are fully unaware with the
service
law.
Therefore,
this
Court
depreciate and condemns the act of
respondents and a warning is also issued to
them to be conscious in future while
dealing with such matters.

28. Under such facts of the case,
impugned order dated 27.05.2022 is
contrary to the settled provisions of law,
therefore, writ petition is allowed and
impugned order dated 27.05.2022 is hereby
quashed.

29. Respondent No. 2 is directed to
pay the deducted amount of Rs. 10,14,594/-
forthwith to the petitioner within two
months from the date of submission of
certified copy of this order, alongwith
interest as @ 6 % from due date to the date
of actual payment.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 16860 of 1991

Shri Naunihal Haider ...Petitioner
Versus
Asst. Settlement Officer Consolidation,
Budaun & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hari Bhawan Pandey, Sri Harish
Chandra, Sri Mata Prasad, Sri R.P.S.